| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Another unnecessary war?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Another unnecessary war?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2013 at 02:02
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:

Not a 100% failed diplomacy, If it meant to get rid of Syrian chemical weapons. Which country does get rid of its chemical weapons (assets here) without any external push? Only very few like Kazakhstan.

You are missing the point. Obama did not actually wanted military intervention (as he do not care about chemical weapons or civilian causalties from conventional warfare). He was just about to do that in order to keep up with his promise on "red line" word. Otherwise he and US would seen even more incompetent. Obama's silly promise gave initiative to Syrian regime and now they are singlehandedly using it to their benefit with help of cunning Russian diplomacy.

Next move of US is likely to be disputing reliability of Russian and Syrian promises. Then they will blow up a few regime targets. This will make them appear to be regained initiative but they will lose some more prestige anyway...

For some reason my whole answer to your post did not post here, so I write you a brief version of it here.

You can certainly think that way, but from my own experience many political decisions and comments have been based on predefined plans which we may not be able to understand at the time the comments have been made. Objective thinking is required to see through layers of political decision making. US and European allies have been after Syrian WMD for ages under different scenarios and this last one is only a part of them. 

Syrian conflict is a total mess and halting spot at the same time. The last chemical attacks are extremely fishy. Russia and China have found common ground with Iran to stop US camp advances on ME. They want to make sure the Libyan incident won't happen again and they won't lose another stepping block. Post 2001 excuses does not work anymore for any invasion with current economic downturns at home and it has also made creation of any coalition (to legitimize an attack) more complicated. Now, it comes the false flag operation and other types of manipulating mind games. There is a high possibility that Syria ceases to exist as an uniform entity in near future. This will brings an end to post 2001 American adventures and can causes a new cold war type situation. The politics of post WWII do not apply to this time and we are at a turning point in global political theater. I predict many countries may change their alliances from now on. (a very volatile and fragile situation that can turn to a disaster)

It is time for US to backs down from costly games in ME and refocuses on internal issues. We have to rebuild our country or we will walk the path of USSR.

With all honesty, Russian proposal will be seen as another time wasting tactic to draw attention of global audience. If you study about destruction of chemical weapons you know it is extremely expensive and time consuming. It took two decades for Russia to get rid of half of its soviet era chemical weapons and the same thing goes for US (years plus some 40 bil $). Taking the risks of exposure and unsafe condition of Syria, it sound like a joke.


Edited by Harburs - 11 Sep 2013 at 02:20
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Sep 2013 at 02:30
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:

  As long as there is a veto rule UN is not entirely democratic. We also need to look at it from this side, what if there was no UN at all. This organization has helped millions of people and actually has solved many conflicts, so it is something necessary and positive, but not Ideal. 


Interesting enough, the veto came into existence to solely deny the USSR more unfair votes it was trying to get for itself back at the time of the UN's establishment. The world powers of the time were trying too make an equitable best of deteriorating situation that soon came to be known as the cold war.
It's been more than two decades  since collapse of USSR. If that was the excuse then They would have changed by now.
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Sep 2013 at 02:33
Turkey has shot down a Syrian helicopter near its border with Syria. Turkey seems so eager to rush to a military engagement with Syria!
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Sep 2013 at 03:09
Harburs, in re this:  "@ lirelou: The age of heroism is over. "

It has nothing to do with heroism and everything to do with: Who's going to put out the garbage? It's a nasty and unpleasant duty, but someone has to do it. Or we just close our eyes and invent reasons why governments have a right to exterminate those segments of the population who do not agree with them.

I see this as a 21st Century version of the League of Nations versus Musslolini's Italy. Let's all put on John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance". Except if you listen to it carefully, he takes all sides and isms to task.  The Cambodian's gave peace a chance in 1975, and from then until 1978-79 they had to live the nightmare of the Khmers Rouges. Syria has four times the population of 1975 Cambodia, but since the regime is likely to remain in power and capable of hiding the evidence, the world shouldn't mind as much.

All I am saying, is give peace genocide a chance.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Sep 2013 at 03:41
I do understand your concerns, but who is going to pay that price? Our broke economy? Believe me, I do approve to help the helpless but if we can. I feel the pain every time I listen to the radio, TV or surf the net. But it also makes me to think twice when I see the overgrowing homeless Americans begging for food everyday along every single cross road that I pass. From my Uni to the work or to the house and whenever I go grocery shopping. It is really giving me hard time to focus (I can not pass my own countryman who is begging for a job or food without doing nothing all the times), but I can only help very few. If we go to another war I am not sure how many more people are going to lose their jobs, homes, or families. Simply,  I think our economy does not allow us move freely. Have you ever noticed the number of homeless Americans recently?

Edited by Harburs - 17 Sep 2013 at 03:46
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Sep 2013 at 19:18
Hello to you all, long time since I posted anything.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I flat out refuse to believe Assad used chemical weapons. He has been steadily winning the war using conventional weapons and was set to continue. He is an intelligent man and knows perfectly well that using chemical weapons is just rolling out the red carpet for outside intervention. It makes no sense for him to do it. So I don't believe he did.


Well the UN report just came in and chemical weapons were used and Assad used them, the question now is what would the world would do?

As for Assad "winning", that's utter nonsense. The guy doesn't even control half of his capital city, his hometown is less than 40km from major rebel controlled areas which they took last month in an offensive and just last weak lost control of major towns between Damascus and Homs. If that's winning I really would like to see what is losing.

As for him being intelligent, please, all this would have ended if he fired his cousin who tortured and raped the 12 year old children in Daraa, he decided to reward him and punish their fathers who dared launch an official complaint.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


The more I see of the Syrian opposition the more I come to believe they are increasingly composed of fundamentalists who are not even Syrian. If they win I predict atrocities all round for the Druze, Alawite, Christian and Shia communities in Syria.


So to supposedly protect 20% of the Syrian population that already slaughtered 100k in this war (and 50k in the previous 40 years) not to mention the 7 million already displaced we should keep on punishing 80%, what a wonderful moral position.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


As 'the West' (which I appointed myself titular emperor of this morning), I believe this is a Syrian matter and should be left to the Syrians. If we aid either side we are likely to be helping a group committing widespread abuses, and so our own integrity is compromised. Let the Syrians fight their own war on their terms and be content with the result. The only humane thing we can really do is assist the civilian refugees.




Here is the thing, if this event goes unpunished then excuse me for saying this but if a country like Saudi Arabia decided to gas the hell out of its enemies civilians or otherwise the world should shut the f*k up because it accepted a criminal regime's used against civilians it might well accept it used in a defensive war against soldiers.

Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2013 at 17:30
Sorry to answer this, but I could not resist. The real answer will be up to Constanine XI.
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello to you all, long time since I posted anything.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I flat out refuse to believe Assad used chemical weapons. He has been steadily winning the war using conventional weapons and was set to continue. He is an intelligent man and knows perfectly well that using chemical weapons is just rolling out the red carpet for outside intervention. It makes no sense for him to do it. So I don't believe he did.


1.Well the UN report just came in and chemical weapons were used and Assad used them, the question now is what would the world would do?

2.As for Assad "winning", that's utter nonsense. The guy doesn't even control half of his capital city, his hometown is less than 40km from major rebel controlled areas which they took last month in an offensive and just last weak lost control of major towns between Damascus and Homs. If that's winning I really would like to see what is losing.

3.As for him being intelligent, please, all this would have ended if he fired his cousin who tortured and raped the 12 year old children in Daraa, he decided to reward him and punish their fathers who dared launch an official complaint.

1. The UN report does not specify any attackers, so it is up to the reader to confirm who was the culprit. Yet, It could be a well organized false flag operation. 
2. For now he has the upper hand slightly over rebels at the moment. Since many areas are being exchange between government and rebel forces, we can not conclude he is losing. Since the battle of Qusair, his forces have gained the upper hand and successfully cut down rebel's major weapon channel through Lebanon and  secured the access to Syrian coastal regions. They did this while they have been sanctioned one-sided by Western powers. He has the capital and still rules.
3. not to defend the guy but he has a doctorate degree, and he has the academic intelligence. If you mean political intelligence then I have no comments since I am not familiar with the subject. Even if Assad had taken your advice to the consideration. There would be no warranties that his opposition camp would not find another excuse for demonstration and chaos. If you remember those days, demonstration and civil disobedience were everywhere in Arab world.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


The more I see of the Syrian opposition the more I come to believe they are increasingly composed of fundamentalists who are not even Syrian. If they win I predict atrocities all round for the Druze, Alawite, Christian and Shia communities in Syria.

So to supposedly protect 20% of the Syrian population that already slaughtered 100k in this war (and 50k in the previous 40 years) not to mention the 7 million already displaced we should keep on punishing 80%, what a wonderful moral position.

I don't look at it as a Shia/Sunni or Majority/Minority war. It is more of a mixture of Islamist vs Secular, Sunni extremist vs the rest, Arab nationalist vs Socialist despotic with elements of Alawite. The major opposing camp is consisted of Islamic brotherhood and it affiliates. They started the last civil war (which took lives of 30k in Hafiz Assad reign), and they started this one as well. There are some elements of nationalist groups among rebels but they are less funded or operative. There is no such a thing as 20% vs 80% here. You can not lump all Sunnis including Kurd into opposition camps. It is more of 20% vs 20% fight to me, and the rest have been caught up in between. There are many Sunni Arabs who does support the regime or simply hate opposition camp. These people would rather have a despotic but secular guy running their country to say step the path of Libya or Egypt. Sharia laws will invade many minorities or non-religious individuals. half of 100k were supporters of the regime and military servicemen. Many of those displaced were either supporters of Assad or indifferent masses who ran for their lives. A major civil war with this caliber plus terrorist attacks and war crimes committed by the both sides, 7 mil is acceptable.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


As 'the West' (which I appointed myself titular emperor of this morning), I believe this is a Syrian matter and should be left to the Syrians. If we aid either side we are likely to be helping a group committing widespread abuses, and so our own integrity is compromised. Let the Syrians fight their own war on their terms and be content with the result. The only humane thing we can really do is assist the civilian refugees.

Here is the thing, if this event goes unpunished then excuse me for saying this but if a country like Saudi Arabia decided to gas the hell out of its enemies civilians or otherwise the world should shut the f*k up because it accepted a criminal regime's used against civilians it might well accept it used in a defensive war against soldiers.
Al-Jassas

 This is not the way. If your logic was correct, Iran would have to gassed the heck out of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (for their financial and logistic support of the Iraq during the gulf war) or Israel in general. Keep this in mind it is a nasty civil war and it does not justify another country using it against his enemies in a preemptive attack. During the Iran/Iraq war while Saddam regime were using chemical weapon heavily against Iranian soldiers, not only US, USSR, or European powers didn't raise an eyebrow but also they kept supplying him with weapons. It was only when He used gasses against his civilians they have noticed and when it was a high probability of Iraqis using chemical weapons against US forces after invasion of Kuwait and Khafji battle in Saudi Arabia, Western powers came to conclusion that they have to punish him. Now go and draw an analogy for it.

Sometimes I think ME masses are not ready for a democratic way of governing. Regretfully, a dictatorship is the only thing that can put everything together in many middle eastern countries. Take a look at Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq,..
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2013 at 12:12
Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


1. The UN report does not specify any attackers, so it is up to the reader to confirm who was the culprit. Yet, It could be a well organized false flag operation.


Sorry but this is cuckoo talk. The regime already accept the use of chemical weapons and accepted the fact that it still controls all the chemical weapons. The UN report was called for by Russia and Syria and there were Russian experts on the panel and when it came contrary to their wishes they began to whine.

If you read the report, which I did, the only possible conclusion is a coordinated purposeful regime attack that took into account meteorological conditions that would maximise the lethality of the weapons and was launched from regime controlled areas against a wide range of targets using lethal amounts of Sarin and utilising complex delivery mechanisms only available to the regime. Since the regime never until now admitted the rebels control those delivery mechanisms one would easily conclude who.

This talk about false flag operations of a regime that already massacred 100k people not to mention the countless massacres committed well before (all documented on youtube and human rights organisations) is more absurd that 9/11 conspiracy theories because this is being said in defense of a regime that never shied away from massacring its own people. Are you seriously taking the side of Assad?

HRW did a mapping of possible trajectories of the rockets:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/17/dispatches-mapping-sarin-flight-path

If this doesn't convinces you I don't know what will.

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


2. For now he has the upper hand slightly over rebels at the moment. Since many areas are being exchange between government and rebel forces, we can not conclude he is losing. Since the battle of Qusair, his forces have gained the upper hand and successfully cut down rebel's major weapon channel through Lebanon and secured the access to Syrian coastal regions. They did this while they have been sanctioned one-sided by Western powers. He has the capital and still rules.


No he hasn't. Qusair was a town 5km from the Lebanese border, its fall was a matter of time. After 3 campaigns it and a devastating 1 month battle he took a town surrounded on 3 sides for the better of a year, big deal. Nor he controls the capital, remember the sites that were gassed are in the capital and under rebel control.

As for weapons for the rebels, please, what western/Gulf support did they get? You are jocking right?

Comparing a couple of gas masks with $9 billion of Iranian money just this year not to mention the hundreds of Russian "advisers" and the endless weapons deliveries paid for by Iran from Russia. Not to mention the thousands of Revolutionary Guards members from Iran, Iraq and even Saudi Arabia (at least 30-40 shias from Saudi Arabia are known to have been killed fighting for the regime mostly in Qusair and Aleppo).

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


3. not to defend the guy but he has a doctorate degree, and he has the academic intelligence. If you mean political intelligence then I have no comments since I am not familiar with the subject. Even if Assad had taken your advice to the consideration. There would be no warranties that his opposition camp would not find another excuse for demonstration and chaos. If you remember those days, demonstration and civil disobedience were everywhere in Arab world.


So its OK to massacre c. 15000 people by the time the armed struggle began (July 2011) so as not to disturb the peace? Didn't hear that from you when the losers in the Iranian elections whined 4 years ago.


Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


I don't look at it as a Shia/Sunni or Majority/Minority war. It is more of a mixture of Islamist vs Secular, Sunni extremist vs the rest, Arab nationalist vs Socialist despotic with elements of Alawite. The major opposing camp is consisted of Islamic brotherhood and it affiliates. They started the last civil war (which took lives of 30k in Hafiz Assad reign), and they started this one as well. There are some elements of nationalist groups among rebels but they are less funded or operative. There is no such a thing as 20% vs 80% here. You can not lump all Sunnis including Kurd into opposition camps. It is more of 20% vs 20% fight to me, and the rest have been caught up in between. There are many Sunni Arabs who does support the regime or simply hate opposition camp. These people would rather have a despotic but secular guy running their country to say step the path of Libya or Egypt. Sharia laws will invade many minorities or non-religious individuals. half of 100k were supporters of the regime and military servicemen. Many of those displaced were either supporters of Assad or indifferent masses who ran for their lives. A major civil war with this caliber plus terrorist attacks and war crimes committed by the both sides, 7 mil is acceptable.


Unfortunately Iran, the Hizb and the Syria leader chose it to be that. From the get go the demonstrations against Mubarak were a demand for freedom but against Assad were a western plot by takfiri sunnis. The regime began to target sunnis inside the regime and entrench the sectarian feelings by recalling into service the butchers of Hamah and Aleppo. And then there were the Shibiha, mostly Alawites, protected by the regime and controlled exclusively by Alawites began targeting Sunnis and believe it or not Ismailis killing, murdering, robbing and raping with official government protection. That made the revolution into a sectarian one.

Last year Islamists were no where near as powerfull as today, less than 10%. Now they are 50% and AQ supporters/affiliates make up 10% when they didn't exist before and as long as Assad gets away with gassing his people the number will grow.   

As for the 100k being regime supporters, these are the confirmed numbers (with names attached to them) and only 30k are regime troops, the bigger number, 200-300k is those who no one knows their fate. As for the internally displaced and the refugees the overwhelming majority of them are in rebel controlled areas which negates any claim that they support the regime.

Finally, go to Libya and ask anyone there if they would like to go back to the Qadhafi days and having spoken to Libyans everyone would rather live in the desert (which many did during the dear leader's rule) than to live under his dictatorship. As for Egypt the situation isn't even comparable to that of Iran right now let alone comparing it with Syria.

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


This is not the way. If your logic was correct, Iran would have to gassed the heck out of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (for their financial and logistic support of the Iraq during the gulf war) or Israel in general. Keep this in mind it is a nasty civil war and it does not justify another country using it against his enemies in a preemptive attack. During the Iran/Iraq war while Saddam regime were using chemical weapon heavily against Iranian soldiers, not only US, USSR, or European powers didn't raise an eyebrow but also they kept supplying him with weapons. It was only when He used gasses against his civilians they have noticed and when it was a high probability of Iraqis using chemical weapons against US forces after invasion of Kuwait and Khafji battle in Saudi Arabia, Western powers came to conclusion that they have to punish him. Now go and draw an analogy for it.

Sometimes I think ME masses are not ready for a democratic way of governing. Regretfully, a dictatorship is the only thing that can put everything together in many middle eastern countries. Take a look at Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq,..


First of all the Qatif incidents of 79, 80 and 82, the bombings during and after that, the Iranian intervention in Bahrain, UAE, Qatar and Oman etc. during both the Shah and the Khomeni regimes predated any support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war which began with Iranian based terrorist organisations like Badr force lead by the current PM in Iraq bombing the government and its supporters in 79 and 80. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had a mutual defence treaty with Iraq which was activated by Iraq the moment the war started so they had no choice.

Now to the moral of the story. Letting Saddam get away with chemical weapons use resulted in Halabjah and then Kuwait and eventually 2003. Saddam was ripe for overthrow as early as 1986 by generals who didn't want to use chemical weapons or a war with Iran but the international community gave him a pass. Giving Bashar a pass is giving a green light for every horrible dictator to do what the hell he wants to to his people with impunity. Are you will to accept that?

As for people being ready for democracy just because they voted for Islamists, I would venture the same for the US since they voted Dubya twice and are demanding their government declare bankruptcy and drag themselves and the world to economic Armageddon for pure idiotic ideological reasons. The people who overthrew Mubarak and Qadhafi overthrew Morsi in a revolution not unlike the one in 2011 (polls show that Morsi had a lower approval rating than Mubarak when he was, like Mubarak before him, forced out by the Army).

Just because you are a democracy doesn't mean its a magic recipe for success, just look at Latin America.

Al-Jassas

Edited by Al Jassas - 19 Sep 2013 at 12:13
Back to Top
Ribbaud View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 25
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ribbaud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Sep 2013 at 17:58
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

...The people who overthrew Mubarak and Qadhafi overthrew Morsi in a revolution not unlike the one in 2011 (polls show that Morsi had a lower approval rating than Mubarak when he was, like Mubarak before him, forced out by the Army).

Just because you are a democracy doesn't mean its a magic recipe for success, just look at Latin America.

Al-Jassas


Just who exactly elected Mubarak? At least Morsi was elected by a free democratic vote. If the Egyptians didn't like him, all they had to do was wait for the next election. That's how a democracy is supposed to work.
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Sep 2013 at 05:59
@ Aj: I want to give you a full respond but I have to take care of my job and studies. I will answer in about a day or two.
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2013 at 05:39
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Well the UN report just came in and chemical weapons were used and Assad used them, the question now is what would the world would do?

As for Assad "winning", that's utter nonsense. The guy doesn't even control half of his capital city, his hometown is less than 40km from major rebel controlled areas which they took last month in an offensive and just last weak lost control of major towns between Damascus and Homs. If that's winning I really would like to see what is losing.

As for him being intelligent, please, all this would have ended if he fired his cousin who tortured and raped the 12 year old children in Daraa, he decided to reward him and punish their fathers who dared launch an official complaint.


Hi Al Jassas. The UN report still leaves room for doubt. This is not the first time we have been told about WMDs only to have been deceived. We also need to ask the question of whether Assad ordered their use or whether that order was given by someone else without his knowledge (which many consider a likely scenario). If that is the case I don't think it warrants intervention, though definitely does warrant censure. In the grand scheme of things we are talking about 1% of the war's casualties. Death my sarin gas isn't pleasant, but neither is slowly bleeding to death from the abdomen from shrapnel wounds (which is somehow ok for reasons no one bothered to explain).

Damascus is mostly secure with some pockets of difficulty in the outer suburban areas. For the most part the interior of the city is secure. The government forces have been increasingly on the offensive, taking towns like al-Qusayr and being able to then redeploy their troops to other fronts, reducing the perimeter they need to fight on. Training by the Iranians and Hizb is having a marked effect on the capabilities of the Syrian troops, and they seem to be steadily retaking the initivative after the earlier chaos.

The man may be intelligent but still lack power over certain members of his own family. He was not the groomed heir and inherited the Presidency with some of his relatives already possessing well established power bases which would be difficult to fully subordinate. My point is that he is well educated, well travelled and in the interviews he has given he is certainly able to explain his position in a way which shows sense and understanding. On that basis I am not willing to condemn him just yet as being feckless or sadistic.

Quote So to supposedly protect 20% of the Syrian population that already slaughtered 100k in this war (and 50k in the previous 40 years) not to mention the 7 million already displaced we should keep on punishing 80%, what a wonderful moral position.


My reading of the Syrian demographics suggests to me that Sunni Arabs only make up 60% of the population (source is wiki). But even then, not all Sunni Arabs oppose Assad. The conflict has other elements as Harburs mentioned. With Sunni Arabs the regime can only punish them so much; because Syria is largely surrounded by Sunni neighbours, many of them Arab. Which neighbouring country is going to step in to protect the Christians, Druze, Alawites and Shia with the victorious Sunni insurgency in power enjoying the full backing of nations like Saudi and Turkey? Israel has no interest intervening in its neighbours for altruistic human rights reasons unless the people being bashed are Jews. Strongly Maronite and Shia Lebannon is too small and unstable itself to do much. If Iran loses Syria now it can't expect to make a re-entry with the Alawites thrown out of power.

Which ever side wins, the loser is going to be made to pay in blood. I don't have a solution for you that is going to avoid that; except the partition the country along sectarian lines. Some societies are not ready for demographic pluralism or democracy.

Quote Here is the thing, if this event goes unpunished then excuse me for saying this but if a country like Saudi Arabia decided to gas the hell out of its enemies civilians or otherwise the world should shut the f*k up because it accepted a criminal regime's used against civilians it might well accept it used in a defensive war against soldiers.


It's trickier than that. As I said we must be mindful that such weapons may have been discharged without government authorisation; and that's IF the UN report can be considered impartial and reliable. And the death toll, while horrible for those affected, was not especially large considering the size of this conflict. There is a big difference between a government intentionally gassing 50,000 civilians, and a maverick officer during a long and very vicious civil war making an unauthorised decision that killed 1500 people in an area held by enemy combatants, and immediately afterwards resulted in his superiors agreeing to dispose of said weapons so they could not be used again.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2013 at 11:32
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Well the UN report just came in and chemical weapons were used and Assad
used them, the question now is what would the world would do?

As
for Assad "winning", that's utter nonsense. The guy doesn't even
control half of his capital city, his hometown is less than 40km from
major rebel controlled areas which they took last month in an offensive
and just last weak lost control of major towns between Damascus and
Homs. If that's winning I really would like to see what is losing.

As
for him being intelligent, please, all this would have ended if he
fired his cousin who tortured and raped the 12 year old children in
Daraa, he decided to reward him and punish their fathers who dared
launch an official complaint.


Hi Al Jassas. The UN report still leaves room for doubt. This is not the first time we have been told about WMDs only to have been deceived. We also need to ask the question of whether Assad ordered their use or whether that order was given by someone else without his knowledge (which many consider a likely scenario). If that is the case I don't think it warrants intervention, though definitely does warrant censure. In the grand scheme of things we are talking about 1% of the war's casualties. Death my sarin gas isn't pleasant, but neither is slowly bleeding to death from the abdomen from shrapnel wounds (which is somehow ok for reasons no one bothered to explain).


Doubt about what exactly? Everyone accepts the use of chemical weapons as a fact, in Iraq the argument was about if WMDs actually existed and whether they can be used. Here the regime not only accepted the fact that it has WMDs and just accepted dismantling them, it also, contrary to all Russian efforts, denied that they were not under control. Indeed Assad has just said in an interview with Chinese TV that WMDs are under his personal command which leaves little to the imagination on who actually ordered the attack.

As for the deaths being 1% of total casualties, remember, this was just one simple incident where roughly 2kgs of Sarin was used. He has 1000 tons.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


Damascus is mostly secure with some pockets of difficulty in the outer suburban areas. For the most part the interior of the city is secure. The government forces have been increasingly on the offensive, taking towns like al-Qusayr and being able to then redeploy their troops to other fronts, reducing the perimeter they need to fight on. Training by the Iranians and Hizb is having a marked effect on the capabilities of the Syrian troops, and they seem to be steadily retaking the initivative after the earlier chaos.


And you say that based on what exactly? In the maps in the links I provided above this could be nothing farther than the truth and the regime has actually lost more lands in the last couple of months than it gained in the 3 months before that. Check maps from military oriented websites that monitor the situation. And if that isn't enough checkout what the deputy PM said about the fighting reaching a stalemate and only a "negotiated" settlement is possible. A victor would never admit he is losing and especially not a regime like the Assad regime which celebrated the capture of Qusair (a town of 15k people 10km from the Lebanese border besieged for the better part of a year and defended by 1500-2000 against 1 mechanised division and 2 brigade sized Hizb forces) as if he liberated the Golan.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


The man may be intelligent but still lack power over certain members of his own family. He was not the groomed heir and inherited the Presidency with some of his relatives already possessing well established power bases which would be difficult to fully subordinate. My point is that he is well educated, well travelled and in the interviews he has given he is certainly able to explain his position in a way which shows sense and understanding. On that basis I am not willing to condemn him just yet as being feckless or sadistic.


Obviously you have no idea how he got to where he is. He was the would be king for the last 6 years of his father's life reaching the rank of Full General (the highest rank in the Syrian armed forces is Lt. General) by the time he was 34!! In the last year of his father's life he exercised enormous authority ridding the army, security forces and the civil services from hundreds of competent career Sunni and to a lesser extent Christian officers and civil servants much to the annoyance of his in-and-out of coma dying father and replacing them largely with corrupt Alawites who happen to be his relatives (the five families, Makhloufs, Shalishs, Al-Assad and two other families I forgot the names) as well as his Sunni relatives (his wife's family, his brother's wife family, his sunni cousins and the Homs and Aleppo clique of businessmen). He had enormous power and he had support for reform from within the regime when the protests began but he chose war and he got it. Read about Ali Habib and other highly influential Alawites including his own son in law who wanted to reform but were killed and or exiled largely on the advice of his mother.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


Quote So to supposedly protect 20% of the Syrian population that already
slaughtered 100k in this war (and 50k in the previous 40 years) not to
mention the 7 million already displaced we should keep on punishing 80%,
what a wonderful moral position.


My reading of the Syrian demographics suggests to me that Sunni Arabs only make up 60% of the population (source is wiki). But even then, not all Sunni Arabs oppose Assad. The conflict has other elements as Harburs mentioned. With Sunni Arabs the regime can only punish them so much; because Syria is largely surrounded by Sunni neighbours, many of them Arab. Which neighbouring country is going to step in to protect the Christians, Druze, Alawites and Shia with the victorious Sunni insurgency in power enjoying the full backing of nations like Saudi and Turkey? Israel has no interest intervening in its neighbours for altruistic human rights reasons unless the people being bashed are Jews. Strongly Maronite and Shia Lebannon is too small and unstable itself to do much. If Iran loses Syria now it can't expect to make a re-entry with the Alawites thrown out of power.


The revolt never began as a sectarian rebellion in the first place. The regime decided to turn it into a sectarian war and the world saw it that way and eventually it did turn so.

Plus even if Sunni Arabs were 60% (which they are not and it excluded 15% urban Turkmen and Kurds who lean more Islamist rather than ethnicist) it is still much higher than shia Arabs in Iraq who were 45% yet the entire state wasn't just handed to the shias, it was handed to the most militant and sectarian of the shia in Iraq (the guys who chose to fight for Iran for pure sectarian reasons) despite the Iraqi regime being no where near as sectarian as the Syrian one.

Now we reach to the heart of the problem, assuming that the Sunni insurgency will massacre the minorities en masse once they win. Based on what exactly?

If history tells us something about minorities in the middle east it tells us two thing. The first is that they are the masochistic prison bitch bending over to other minorities and not saying a peep to earn brownie points. If you don't believe me just read about what the Syrian regime did to Lebanese Christians during the civil war and subsequent occupation. The same political leaders who were literally gang raped by Syrian intelligence agencies (the incidents were filmed and widely distributed) in the 80s and early 90s and were opposed to the regime even after it left Lebanon in 2005 are its biggest defenders including defending the undependable like the chemical weapons attack which they say was "necessary".

The second is that they are merciless in victory. Case in Point, the Lebanese civil war where the Sunni PLO had 1 massacre to its name with a count over 100 (as far as I know there might be other) yet the christians had 5 over 1000 and the shias had 2 over 1000 and all 7 were against the Sunni majority. I could go on and on but the point is unfortunately valid.

The regime has killed thousands of Alawis, Christians and especially Druz throughout the years and even now Christian women in mixed villages in the coastal areas have been kidnapped and raped by Shibbiha militias and no peep from Christians, Christian churches desecrated and robbed by the same militias and no peep. A Druz actor had his daughter gang raped and yet he still defends the regime. His best friend, a Sunni and also an actor, was murdered by the regime and yet he still defends the regime.

AQ is now in an open war with Al-Nusra front because AQ broke a the cross on top of a church and raised its flag and people still think those minorities are under threat.


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


Which ever side wins, the loser is going to be made to pay in blood. I don't have a solution for you that is going to avoid that; except the partition the country along sectarian lines. Some societies are not ready for demographic pluralism or democracy.


Again based on what? If the regime goes peacefully all rebel forces except AQ announced that they would lay down their arms. Indeed they already have agreements with the regime to allow humanitarian access to areas besieged by the rebels like in Aleppo although the opposite hasn't happened. People are already tired of war and even after two years ideological causes have not taken root although this is beginning to change with defections the AQ from other rebel forces.

As for purge of blood. If you are guilty then you deserve it. Personally any foreigner, Saudi (I have relatives fighting in Syria as we speak and I won't shed a tear for their death), Iranian or Lebanese, captured fighting should be executed on the spot because he is a mercenary.

Throughout the conflict the FSA and other rebel groups have captured thousands and except for a couple of instances of mass murder all of them have been released. Some of those released went abroad and others decided to rejoin the regime with some joining the rebels including some Alawites and Druz (I know of a dozen or so Druz who died fighting for the rebels).

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


Quote Here is the thing, if this event goes unpunished then excuse me for
saying this but if a country like Saudi Arabia decided to gas the hell
out of its enemies civilians or otherwise the world should shut the f*k
up because it accepted a criminal regime's used against civilians it
might well accept it used in a defensive war against soldiers.


It's trickier than that. As I said we must be mindful that such weapons may have been discharged without government authorisation; and that's IF the UN report can be considered impartial and reliable. And the death toll, while horrible for those affected, was not especially large considering the size of this conflict. There is a big difference between a government intentionally gassing 50,000 civilians, and a maverick officer during a long and very vicious civil war making an unauthorised decision that killed 1500 people in an area held by enemy combatants, and immediately afterwards resulted in his superiors agreeing to dispose of said weapons so they could not be used again.




As I said, that assumption is simply silly. Everyone demanded the UN to investigate and god knows how many independent labs in 5 different countries did tests and they all reached the same conclusion.

Plus if it was a rogue agent then hand him over. Its quite simple really. A war crime is a war crime.

Al-Jassas
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2013 at 16:37
Constantine: in regards t this:  "The UN report still leaves room for doubt. This is not the first time we have been told about WMDs only to have been deceived. We also need to ask the question of whether Assad ordered their use or whether that order was given by someone else without his knowledge (which many consider a likely scenario)

Well the nature of WMD security and handling will always leave room for doubt. Saddam knew that when he kept up the appearance of having WMD while getting rid of them. Even dictators have to cater to their base of support. However I find your grasping at the possibility that Assad did not order their use to border on the absurd. How can you have so blatantly misjudged the nature of this regime? This was not deciding who would clean some remote garrison's toilets. This was a decision that had to be made at the very top. If you cannot see that, then with all due respect for your many excellent posts, you should do very well counting angels on the heads of pins.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2013 at 15:54
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Constantine: in regards t this:  "The UN report still leaves room for doubt. This is not the first time we have been told about WMDs only to have been deceived. We also need to ask the question of whether Assad ordered their use or whether that order was given by someone else without his knowledge (which many consider a likely scenario)

Well the nature of WMD security and handling will always leave room for doubt. Saddam knew that when he kept up the appearance of having WMD while getting rid of them. Even dictators have to cater to their base of support.


Hello lirelou. The Saddam example merely illustrates the enormous inconsistency in our approach. He gasses the Kurds and we support him; he possesses no WMDs, protests that he has none and we invade him. It sends the message that dictators should do whatever they like because we will just be totally arbitrary and violate our own standards in any case. The more poignant point for the Western viewer is that bodies who have been formed, funded and resourced to inform and protect us have instead deceived us and diverted the finances and lives of young men and women towards the prosecution of military adventures that we have no interest in. Iraq 2003 resulted in Iran actually increasing its geopolitical clout.

Saddam deserved to be invaded as much as half the world's other heads of states who weren't in 2003.

Quote However I find your grasping at the possibility that Assad did not order their use to border on the absurd. How can you have so blatantly misjudged the nature of this regime? This was not deciding who would clean some remote garrison's toilets. This was a decision that had to be made at the very top. If you cannot see that, then with all due respect for your many excellent posts, you should do very well counting angels on the heads of pins


We've had enough exchanges on here for me to know you are not naive or lacking in practical information. So I must ask whether you really think the Syrian military command is as well regulated as that of a nation like the USA or China. My view is that it is not. My view is that Syria differs enormously from these countries in a number of key areas. It is controlled by a tiny demographic at odds with 90% of the population. It's leader is not elected. It's leader is an intellectually capable man with a weak personality who inherited a state he was not sufficiently groomed for and in which certain relatives older than himself had already established power bases for themselves that he could not subordinate. He is fighting an especially vicious civil war in which his people may face oblivion if they lose.

To me it appears totally plausible that one of his much more powerful uncles could have given the go-ahead for such a strike. Does this mean that Assad should be allowed to possess chemical weapons? Absolutely not, the latest attack has demonstrated (if regime forces did it, which we can't say for sure) that Assad does not have full control of his stockpile.

Does this mean we should intervene in a civil war in Syria? Again, no. 1400 people died in the attack. 1% of the war casualties thus far. Following which the Assad regime agreed to give up its chem weapons store (which really is the appropriate response).

The Syrian opposition forces have been cutting the heads off Catholic priests, executing Christians in Ma'aluah who refused to convert to Islam, and issuing summary executions for poverty stricken Muslim boys who refuse to give them free coffee when they came across them on the roadside.

My question to you is whether you will feel at peace with yourself if the West intervenes and puts the rebels in power. When the local Christian population is brutalised and becames a diaspora like so many other Christian communities in the Middle East (after we either intervened or did nothing). When women must abandon the more secular status quo and instead submit to Wahabbist rules that control their lives. When your own children and grandchildren must shed blood to fight the resoures of yet another part of the world recruited by Islamo-Fascists to fly planes into your buildings and insert sleeper agents to suicide bomb your people afer you topple a secular government in favour of a fundamentalist one. Angels exist in Islam as well, perhaps your own people can count them from pin heads once they have handed enough geopolitical power to their geopolitical/theological enemies.

So far though, I have admired the tenacity of the American people in resisting the empty exhortations to be drawn into yet another war for no good reason and for no self interest. You're out of step with your own countrymen and most of the population of the Western world. You ought to think why.


Edited by Constantine XI - 01 Oct 2013 at 21:32
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2013 at 21:00
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


To me it appears totally plausible that one of his much more powerful uncles could have given the go-ahead for such a strike. Does this mean that Assad should be allowed to possess chemical weapons? Absolutely not, the latest attack has demonstrated (if regime forces did it, which we can't say for sure) that Assad does not have full control of his stockpile.


Why are you still defending the Assad regime after all the proofs? Even his closest allies the Iranians told the world he did it.

As for whether he was the one who gave the green light or not either way it is an indictment of the regime and of Assad and both are powerful reasons for intervention. If he gave the green light he should go not only for the war crime he committed but for his utter irrationality.

If the green light came from down below then he and the regime must go because they are a threat to international stability since the regime's long history of supporting terrorism means the regime might give these weapons to those groups or give them to Iran and this is unacceptable.


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:




The Syrian opposition forces have been cutting the heads off Catholic priests, executing Christians in Ma'aluah who refused to convert to Islam, and issuing summary executions for poverty stricken Muslim boys who refuse to give them free coffee when they came across them on the roadside.


Just because they are priests doesn't mean they are innocent. Orthodox priests have been filmed blessing the arms of none Christian militiamen and allowing them to use churches for artillery observations, one priest was even a leader of a militia that terrorised sunnis near the border of Lebanon.

As for Maaloula, well the locals disagree with you:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24148322

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


My question to you is whether you will feel at peace with yourself if the West intervenes and puts the rebels in power. When the local Christian population is brutalised and becames a diaspora like so many other Christian communities in the Middle East (after we either intervened or did nothing). When women must abandon the more secular status quo and instead submit to Wahabbist rules that control their lives. When your own children and grandchildren must shed blood to fight the resoures of yet another part of the world recruited by Islamo-Fascists to fly planes into your buildings and insert sleeper agents to suicide bomb your people afer you topple a secular government in favour of a fundamentalist one. Angels exist in Islam as well, perhaps your own people can count them from pin heads once they have handed enough geopolitical power to their geopolitical/theological enemies.


You should ask yourself the real question, is it worth it propping up faux secular dictatorship (faux because it isn't and never was secular) that murdered 200k people of its own citizens and 100k Lebanese and countless Iraqis just to let Christians wear bikinis on the beach?

Well here is news to you, In Egypt the Brotherhood gave more licenses to build churches and more licenses for Alcohol shops than in any given year in Mubarak's "secular" time. The level of communal violence was actually down from the year before and was largely due to the collapse of security and the tribal nature of society than any creeping "Islamism".

Oh and by the way Christian women still can wear bikinis on the beach.


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


So far though, I have admired the tenacity of the American people in resisting the empty exhortations to be drawn into yet another war for no good reason and for no self interest. You're out of step with your own countrymen and most of the population of the Western world. You ought to think why.
</span>


Actually it is of the US's best interest to intervene in Syria and Iraq. Had I been a US policymaker I would have invaded Iraq too just as Dubya did. However what I would not do is hand the country to guy who during the darkest days of Iraqi history chose to fight against their country for pure ideological reasons.

Al-Jassas

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2013 at 21:47
Constantine: in re:  "The more poignant point for the Western viewer is that bodies who have been formed, funded and resourced to inform and protect us have instead deceived us"

No, you were deceived by the political hacks above them. The was every ground to believe that Saddam Hussein still had chemical weapons. He had possessed them in the past, and he had used them in the past, and though he was telling us he didn't have them, he would provide no real proof that such was the case.

Powell mislead the American people because he was too intellectually lazy to check out the reports on the Yellow Cake Uranium and read the caveats. Those above him truly believed that they were in the right because God was with them, or some such silliness. You can have the finest intelligence agencies in the world, but  they are indeed servants, and when their political leaders decide to ignore them, to grasp at straws the professionals have discounted only because it squares nicely with their world outlook, then we the electorate are justly ill-served.

By the way, I'm still not convinced that North Korea had nuclear weapons, but I know that they are working on them, and I know that the Intel agencies assess that they have a certain number. I might actually be right, but if you were a prudent national decision maker, I'd bet you'd tend to the assessed side of the equation.

ps, I don't recall the U.S. having anything to do with gassing the Kurds. As for the Iranians, that's another matter.

pps: Really good reasoning on why Assad may not have done it. Truly, thank you for that. Please don't be offended of I hold on to my own biases for a bit longer.


Edited by lirelou - 01 Oct 2013 at 21:51
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Oct 2013 at 18:52
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


1. The UN report does not specify any attackers, so it is up to the reader to confirm who was the culprit. Yet, It could be a well organized false flag operation.

Sorry but this is cuckoo talk. The regime already accept the use of chemical weapons and accepted the fact that it still controls all the chemical weapons. The UN report was called for by Russia and Syria and there were Russian experts on the panel and when it came contrary to their wishes they began to whine.

If you read the report, which I did, the only possible conclusion is a coordinated purposeful regime attack that took into account meteorological conditions that would maximise the lethality of the weapons and was launched from regime controlled areas against a wide range of targets using lethal amounts of Sarin and utilising complex delivery mechanisms only available to the regime. Since the regime never until now admitted the rebels control those delivery mechanisms one would easily conclude who.

Sorry for being late, but I didn't have enough time to dig the info for this. I am pretty much tied up with my Uni studies and projects. I only come here in my spare time here and there.

The possibility that I mentioned is still there. There were many officers who left the ranks of Assad Army and joined the opposite groups. Now, if there was a plan to use their help to orchestrate such attack before living Assad ranks, It could be useful for opposition groups to blame Assad and get rid of him by a foreign force. It seems possible to me.


Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


This talk about false flag operations of a regime that already massacred 100k people not to mention the countless massacres committed well before (all documented on youtube and human rights organisations) is more absurd that 9/11 conspiracy theories because this is being said in defense of a regime that never shied away from massacring its own people. Are you seriously taking the side of Assad?

HRW did a mapping of possible trajectories of the rockets:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/17/dispatches-mapping-sarin-flight-path

If this doesn't convinces you I don't know what will. 

I have seen those trajectories. The possibility of an inside job with foreign countries' help still exists. All neighboring countries have or can have undisclosed Sarin stockpiles. They could supply the opposition with required expertise to carry out the damn mission. 

I do not take side in this chaos. Frankly, If Assad topples, Iranian regime will be weaken significantly (which I favor), but what will be the cost of that? Displacement and harassment of Syrian minorities! Massacre of Alwaite! Another Islamic pariah state! or a swamp infested with fundamentalist jihadists! Which one should I choose? If Assad stays this misery and civil war may continues for years as well. Taking side is not an option here. Btw, I have seen the massacres done by rebel forces as well, so both side's hands are dirty.


Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


As for weapons for the rebels, please, what western/Gulf support did they get? You are jocking right?

Comparing a couple of gas masks with $9 billion of Iranian money just this year not to mention the hundreds of Russian "advisers" and the endless weapons deliveries paid for by Iran from Russia. Not to mention the thousands of Revolutionary Guards members from Iran, Iraq and even Saudi Arabia (at least 30-40 shias from Saudi Arabia are known to have been killed fighting for the regime mostly in Qusair and Aleppo).

Come on now. It is well known that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and Turkey are helping the rebel financially and logistically. Hatay city of Turkey is the hub of rebels. All jihadists fly to Turkey regroup, being armed and drive to Turkey with Turkish army protection at dark. Border towns of Turkey are full of bearded individuals who come back for supply and treatment in Turkish hospitals. The reports came from UN human rights organization and other independent sources.

Earlier there were reports that Qatar was buying Russian and Chinese made weapon in black market to supply the rebels. Libyan rebels have been active looting Ghadafi weapon warehouses and shipping them to Syria. Money, weapon and volunteers were pouring down from Sunni countries and Europe to Syria. Now, even Germany is worried about its citizens joining this Jihadist groups. Some of them started kidnapping active German charity volunteers in Syria. The only thing rebels does not posses at the moment is heavy weaponry or air support. Some of these rebel forces stated that they are going to establish an Islamic Emirate in Syria and started attacking other groups as well as minority civilians.


Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


So its OK to massacre c. 15000 people by the time the armed struggle began (July 2011) so as not to disturb the peace? Didn't hear that from you when the losers in the Iranian elections whined 4 years ago.

I am not defending him, and I support a democratic election in Syria that all groups can attend while the rights of minority is in place and no Sharia law is forced upon the civilians. The Syrian Muslim brotherhood does not want such a thing, so it should fight for it.
Even 4 years ago. I was not a supporter of green movement leaders but the people who wanted the change. I am a supporter of regime change and establishment of a new secular democratic government with no religion of state. I guess it should be clear now.





Edited by Harburs - 12 Oct 2013 at 19:03
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Oct 2013 at 23:05
Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:




Come on now. It is well known that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and Turkey are helping the rebel financially and logistically. Hatay city of Turkey is the hub of rebels. All jihadists fly to Turkey regroup, being armed and drive to Turkey with Turkish army protection at dark. Border towns of Turkey are full of bearded individuals who come back for supply and treatment in Turkish hospitals. The reports came from UN human rights organization and other independent sources.


Hatay is a province not a city and the majority of the province's population is Arab with a majority of these being Alawis of which hundreds are now fighting for Assad and easily cross the border just as others do.

Now for the support, again I never denied its existence, I said it was nothing compared with the direct support of arms and men (15-20k shia jihadis just from the Arab countries not to mention the 5k Iranians) from Iran, Iraq, Algeria (yes Algeria), UAE (yes, the UAE where Bashar's wife, sister, mother and hundreds of war criminals are now living/being treated on the UAE dime) that the regime gets.

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


Earlier there were reports that Qatar was buying Russian and Chinese made weapon in black market to supply the rebels. Libyan rebels have been active looting Ghadafi weapon warehouses and shipping them to Syria. Money, weapon and volunteers were pouring down from Sunni countries and Europe to Syria. Now, even Germany is worried about its citizens joining this Jihadist groups. Some of them started kidnapping active German charity volunteers in Syria. The only thing rebels does not posses at the moment is heavy weaponry or air support. Some of these rebel forces stated that they are going to establish an Islamic Emirate in Syria and started attacking other groups as well as minority civilians.


So what? Iran flies tons of weapons on a daily basis. The Iraqi borders are open and Iranian trucks go into Syria under full protection from Iraqi security forces after they were targeted last year (which is why there is so much mayhem in Iraq right now, the Iraqi government is busy keeping the route open to Syria instead of tackling terrorists).

As for the Jihadis, again you reap what you sow. Western governments propped up the dictator even after he massacred his own people and rewarded him with a Noble prize (their words not mine), what did you expect? The longer this continues the worse it will get.

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:

   

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


So its OK to massacre c. 15000 people by the time the armed struggle began (July 2011) so as not to disturb the peace? Didn't hear that from you when the losers in the Iranian elections whined 4 years ago.

I am not defending him, and I support a democratic election in Syria that all groups can attend while the rights of minority is in place and no Sharia law is forced upon the civilians. The Syrian Muslim brotherhood does not want such a thing, so it should fight for it.
Even 4 years ago. I was not a supporter of green movement leaders but the people who wanted the change. I am a supporter of regime change and establishment of a new secular democratic government with no religion of state. I guess it should be clear now.





Unfortunately you are. You are basically saying either Bashar or nothing since a free election would most likely lead to Islamists being elected.

As for sharia based law, 50% of the French civil code (probably even more) is in accordance with sharia, so does that make France a "caliphate"?

Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2013 at 02:35
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Unfortunately you are. You are basically saying either Bashar or nothing since a free election would most likely lead to Islamists being elected.

As for sharia based law, 50% of the French civil code (probably even more) is in accordance with sharia, so does that make France a "caliphate"?

Al-Jassas
You are wrong again. I will not support either side. (sorry for my bad language) You can say I prefer sh*t over sh*ttier. If government can come to a mutual agreement with democratic and nationalist rebel groups to find a way for a free election with rights of everyone at place. It will be the best outcome for everyone.

About Sharia laws. How about other 50%?Wink ... Let's make it clear once fundamentalist groups take the power through an election then there won't be another election to take them out of power. This happened in Iran, just like what happened in Germany in 1930s. Once you let the genie out of the lamp there is no going back. So, practically speaking, yes I am against any fundamentalist group taking power peacefully or not. I might look conservative on this issue but I stand firm by what I say.
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2013 at 08:57
Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:

<span style="line-height: 1.4;">
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

</span>Unfortunately you are. You are basically saying either Bashar or nothing since a free election would most likely lead to Islamists being elected.

As for sharia based law, 50% of the French civil code (probably even more) is in accordance with sharia, so does that make France a "caliphate"?

Al-Jassas
<span style=": rgb231, 228, 216; line-height: 1.4;">You are wrong again. I will not support either side. (sorry for my bad language) You can say I prefer sh*t over sh*ttier. If government can come to a mutual agreement with democratic and nationalist rebel groups to find a way for a free election with rights of everyone at place. It will be the best outcome for everyone.</span>
<div style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">
<div style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">About Sharia laws. How about other 50%?Wink ... Let's make it clear once fundamentalist groups take the power through an election then there won't be another election to take them out of power. This happened in Iran, just like what happened in Germany in 1930s. Once you let the genie out of the lamp there is no going back. So, practically speaking, yes I am against any fundamentalist group taking power peacefully or not. I might look conservative on this issue but I stand firm by what I say.


Well most of the other 50% is compatible with other civil codes and jurisprudence. So we ditch those too? And by the way, which part of "sharia law" (again, whatever that is since there is no such thing) do you oppose?

As for elections being the first and the last, well seeing how Islamists are so divided among themselves it is basically implausible to see how they would unite to overtake the state.

Plus once the fear goes people will rise up and with them some opportunist Islamists. The "Wahhabi" Salafists in Egypt (A funny term since Salafists in Egypt predate Wahhabis) were part of the demonstrations that helped oust Morsi.

Comparing what happened in Germany (A nationalistic regime with a massive paramilitary wing in an ideologically charged atmosphere where the opposition takes marching orders from Moscow) and Iran (Secularists handed the state on a golden platter to the Shia Mullahs who command unparalleled power over the masses unlike the Sunni mullahs who have no religious mandate comparable to the Shias) to what is going on right now in the Arab world is totally wrong. Once the old regimes fall let the people find their own way and once people tastes freedom they will never give it up.

Just look at Yemen where you have a country that has 3 firearms per citizen, a tribal society that glorifies vendettas that make the Hatfield-McCoy vendetta an playground fight and a polarized society on so many levels. Yet when they were demonstrating daily against Saleh little bloodshed was spilled and even when that happened cooler heads prevailed. Now the dictator is out, without the intervention of the Army commanded by his son, they are trying to solve their problems peacefully in a poor country with an 3 active rebellions and an out of control population growth. Yet it still didn't break down into a civil war.

Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2013 at 10:52
I'm quite sceptical that Turkey is providing weapons to rebels. But it's indeed true Turkey provided non lethal aid including logistical, organizational and intelligence support with a limited extend.
the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Oct 2013 at 05:31
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

I'm quite sceptical that Turkey is providing weapons to rebels. But it's indeed true Turkey provided non lethal aid including logistical, organizational and intelligence support with a limited extend.
Pay a visit to a border town, ask around from the local inhabitants and pay close attention you will find it out. This is how UN reporter find out about it. I even saw a BBC report about it. There were photos of Turkish military escorting the rebels to the Syrian border near the dawn.
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Oct 2013 at 05:45
AJ wrote: which part of "sharia law" (again, whatever that is since there is no such thing) do you oppose?

@ AJ: Whatever parts that enforces one school of thought and reject the rest. Whatever that makes women and minorities second class citizens and contradicts with democratic values such as freedom of speech, and basic human rights. I have seen the example of countries with Sharia laws... Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and the mentality of people behind this. Many sharia law advocates are radical extremists and  fundamentalists.

It happens that I grew up in one of those societies and as a non-Muslim I experienced immense pressure. Although I had some good Muslims friends, but there were many crazy radicals and government thugs who made life for me and my kinds miserable. So I am talking about first hand experience here. You should know better, you live in another country with such strict laws. Just imagine what was life if you were a non-Muslim (being forced to do or follow something you are not even believe in)?


Edited by Harburs - 14 Oct 2013 at 05:51
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Oct 2013 at 16:50
Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


AJ wrote: <span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">which part of "sharia law" (again, whatever that is since there is no such thing) do you oppose?</span>
<span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">
</span>
<span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">@ AJ: Whatever parts that enforces one school of thought and reject the rest. Whatever that makes women and minorities second class citizens and contradicts with democratic values such as freedom of speech, and basic human rights. I have seen the example of countries with Sharia laws... Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and the mentality of people behind this. Many sharia law advocates are radical extremists and  fundamentalists.</span>
<span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">


First of all Iran follows a modified civil code that changed little when the mullahs came. In many cases that civil code directly violate Ithna Ashari doctrine yet it is still valid. And remember it is because the civil code supersedes the Ithan-Ashari doctrine that many infamous judgements (the stoning cases) were thrown out. For the other two countries again, both follow a civil code, in case of Saudi Arabia it follows the Egyptian code in commercial law aspects (criminal laws are still based on Hanbali Jurisprudence) which are just as legitimate a source as any civil or common law code.

As for women and minority status, the way I see it it is the muslim minorities in western countries that are treated as second class citizens and women are not that far away.

Remember the beacon of freedom called Switzerland that passed a constitutional amendment banning a certain type of building because it was "unwestern" (ignoring the dozens of "nonewestern" temples dotting the country but need no constitutional ban on them). It banned women from voting until the 1970s and some cantons until 1991 and even then it took huffing a puffing and a muslim country to elect a woman as its PM to force the cantons that banned women from voting.

And I am not even going into women's issues like divorce, abortion and even the pill (which the republicans are now using to take the entire world economy as hostage) which are all lawful under "sharia" with little eyebrows raised while many "advanced" and "democratic" western countries still restrict or outright ban them. Of course when western countries do it it's democracy in action but when a muslim country does it it's their religious extremism.



Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


</span>
<span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">It happens that I grew up in one of those societies and as a non-Muslim I experienced immense pressure. Although I had some good Muslims friends, but there were many crazy radicals and government thugs who made life for me and my kinds miserable. So I am talking about first hand experience here. You should know better, you live in another country with such strict laws. Just imagine what was life if you were a non-Muslim (being forced to do or follow something you are not even believe in)?</span>



Try living as a muslim in France (and especially a muslim woman). Iran at least never claim to be a secular democracy (or a sunni country for the sunnis criticising Iran's treatment of its sunnis) espousing freedom and equality.



Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Oct 2013 at 01:35
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


AJ wrote: <span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">which part of "sharia law" (again, whatever that is since there is no such thing) do you oppose?</span>
<span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">
</span>
<span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">@ AJ: Whatever parts that enforces one school of thought and reject the rest. Whatever that makes women and minorities second class citizens and contradicts with democratic values such as freedom of speech, and basic human rights. I have seen the example of countries with Sharia laws... Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and the mentality of people behind this. Many sharia law advocates are radical extremists and  fundamentalists.</span>
<span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">
 

First of all Iran follows a modified civil code that changed little when the mullahs came. In many cases that civil code directly violate Ithna Ashari doctrine yet it is still valid. And remember it is because the civil code supersedes the Ithan-Ashari doctrine that many infamous judgements (the stoning cases) were thrown out. For the other two countries again, both follow a civil code, in case of Saudi Arabia it follows the Egyptian code in commercial law aspects (criminal laws are still based on Hanbali Jurisprudence) which are just as legitimate a source as any civil or common law code.
 

It seems you are not well informed. Iranian courts follow an Islamic code called "Ghanon mojazat Islami" (Islamic Sharia Law) for majority of the ruling. Iranian civil code has been kept in the background for years. This set of Sharia laws comes directly from Ithna-Ashari doctrine. It was supposed to be temporary and experimental since the beginning of the Islamic revolution (1979) and it was postponed every year for ratification until it was finally ratified 2 or 3 years ago. (it was not ratified but it was in practice!) There are thousands of court verdicts that are against Iranian civil code but simply upheld by Islamic Sharia laws. I can go over pages and pages of examples on this matter.

Among most despicable and abused Islamic Sharia laws is the term "Mofsed fel arz" (corrupter of the earth). Many people have been labeled with this term they could be an alcohol vendor, adulterer, drug dealer, burglar, porno graphic video handler, an atheist critic of regime, any opposition leader who defies the regime ideology in public, and any other people who they saw as potential danger to their existence. Thousands of socialists, communists, monarchist, minorities were jailed or killed because of this broad and vague Islamic term.

There are many more examples about people who eat during fasting month, drink alcohol, go to mixed parties (women and men are supposed to be in separate place in parties by Islamic laws), have a love partner other than spouse (opposite or same sex), gamble, preach their religion, .... There are countless Islamic Sharia laws. Do you want me to write them one by one?

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

As for women and minority status, the way I see it it is the muslim minorities in western countries that are treated as second class citizens and women are not that far away.
 

Muslim minorities in western countries have far more freedom than the other minorities in Muslim countries. Muslims only recognize Christians and Jews as minorities and still treat them not as equal as Muslims. 

Women have limited rights in Sharia based countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and former Afghanistan Emirate. 
Since Iran was a pro-western monarchy up to 34 years ago and many women adopted the western values it was relatively hard for mullahs to enforce their Islamic way upon Iranian women. There is a strong female resistance to the regime advances. Saudi Arabia being traditionally conservative caused the Saudi women to succumb to their faith. Lack of enough support inside the Saudi society kept their women under the yoke of Sharia law. In Saudi Arabia women can not vote, drive a car, or go out without a relative male companion and countless other restrictions. There are Islamic behavior patrols checking on how Saudi people behave in public and so on... This shows how free women are in Saudi Arabia.

About minorities and religious tolerance, just tell me what happens if a Saudi Arabian converts to a religion other than Islam and wants to live inside Saudi borders. Do you have non-muslim Saudi Arabian citizen?

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Remember the beacon of freedom called Switzerland that passed a constitutional amendment banning a certain type of building because it was "unwestern" (ignoring the dozens of "nonewestern" temples dotting the country but need no constitutional ban on them). It banned women from voting until the 1970s and some cantons until 1991 and even then it took huffing a puffing and a muslim country to elect a woman as its PM to force the cantons that banned women from voting.

And I am not even going into women's issues like divorce, abortion and even the pill (which the republicans are now using to take the entire world economy as hostage) which are all lawful under "sharia" with little eyebrows raised while many "advanced" and "democratic" western countries still restrict or outright ban them. Of course when western countries do it it's democracy in action but when a muslim country does it it's their religious extremism.

Abortion, divorce and rest if they are being enacted in a parliament in a democracy then it shows the will of the majority. If you notice each US state has its own laws which represent the will of that state toward that issue. If a person goes to another state for an abortion, the residential state can not ban the person from the operation. The problem with religion and here fundamentalist enforcing it upon people through non-democratic way is what I was referring to. US has no state religion and you can practice whatever you believe in as long as you do not physically harm other people. 

I recall a Saudi Arabian court ruled a death penalty for a guy who was suspected of witch craft not long ago. Iranian regime prosecute any religion or believe they think contradict with Islam. According to Iranian constitution only Christian, Jews and Zoroastrians considered religious minorities. Even those minorities have been systematically pressured.

Now, I cherish western democracy because it has many modern and moderate concepts such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, free market, elective process instead of selection, checks and balances among different branches of government and impeaching power of congress (Congress can impeach president and take down from power).
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:

 </span>
<span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">It happens that I grew up in one of those societies and as a non-Muslim I experienced immense pressure. Although I had some good Muslims friends, but there were many crazy radicals and government thugs who made life for me and my kinds miserable. So I am talking about first hand experience here. You should know better, you live in another country with such strict laws. Just imagine what was life if you were a non-Muslim (being forced to do or follow something you are not even believe in)?</span>



Try living as a muslim in France (and especially a muslim woman). Iran at least never claim to be a secular democracy (or a sunni country for the sunnis criticising Iran's treatment of its sunnis) espousing freedom and equality.

Al-Jassas
The only people who may get offended by french law are ultra conservative Muslim women who cover their face. Since this is a security issue I don't sympathize with them, but the anti-minaret law in Switzerland is an obvious double standard. The majority of Muslims have no problem with anti-burka law. Their real problem is something else. I know some people who live in France and as I have heard, Morocans and sometimes Arabs have problem finding jobs because of the way society look at young Morocans. The rest is the mood of society toward who you are and where you come from and I do not deny that. The way Ahmadi nejad has ruined the way people look at Iranians. 9-11, Muslim affiliated terrorism, extremism, influx of running refugees, dictatorship and wars of ME made people to look at us differently. I have seen the terrified looks and reaction of many American people when interact with Middle Easterns.  I admit it is not what a person expects while he/she is coming here to live. It is not perfect, but still far better than my original country.


Edited by Harburs - 18 Oct 2013 at 01:58
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Oct 2013 at 20:13
Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:







It seems you are not well informed. Iranian courts follow an Islamic code called "Ghanon mojazat Islami" (Islamic Sharia Law) for majority of the ruling. Iranian civil code has been kept in the background for years. This set of Sharia laws comes directly from Ithna-Ashari doctrine. It was supposed to be temporary and experimental since the beginning of the Islamic revolution (1979) and it was postponed every year for ratification until it was finally ratified 2 or 3 years ago. (it was not ratified but it was in practice!) There are thousands of court verdicts that are against Iranian civil code but simply upheld by Islamic Sharia laws. I can go over pages and pages of examples on this matter.



I am pretty well informed about this subject having searched it pretty thoroughly. The Civil code, Ghanon Madani (literal translation as you know), still applies and is still taught. Significant changes happened only to family law (most of it getting rid of already "Sharia" based laws that follow different schools of Fiqh) and some aspect of criminal law.

As for laws contradicting Ithna Ashari school well go no farther than the status of women judges. The mere fact that women can plead let alone rule is contradictory to Jaafari school and follows the practice established before the revolution.

As for rulings contradicting the civil code, well that is largely because of the dual nature of the Iranian judicial system. Like everything in Iran (dual primary education, dual higher education, dual military etc.) the religious system is there to over rule the secular system when it conflicts with the regime. However since the overwhelming majority of cases involve ordinary people it is the civil side that deals with them.


Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:

Among most despicable and abused Islamic Sharia laws is the term "Mofsed fel arz" (corrupter of the earth). Many people have been labeled with this term they could be an alcohol vendor, adulterer, drug dealer, burglar, porno graphic video handler, an atheist critic of regime, any opposition leader who defies the regime ideology in public, and any other people who they saw as potential danger to their existence. Thousands of socialists, communists, monarchist, minorities were jailed or killed because of this broad and vague Islamic term.



This crime is a classic "Enemy of the State" crime. A political crime with no defined crime or a defined punishment. When it is a regime member that is accused of it he gets jail, when he is a minority he gets death. You know better than use this as an example because this crime, like all ideological crimes, is unique to Iran, an ideological regime.

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:



There are many more examples about people who eat during fasting month, drink alcohol, go to mixed parties (women and men are supposed to be in separate place in parties by Islamic laws), have a love partner other than spouse (opposite or same sex), gamble, preach their religion, .... There are countless Islamic Sharia laws. Do you want me to write them one by one?


All of these "crimes" you refer to were at one time or another, even today, outlawed in "western democratic" countries through popular demand. Indeed most anti-homosexuality anti-Adultry laws in Arab countries are literal translations of French civil code items that were on the book as recently as the 1990s.

In Iran the people voted in a free election in 1979 between secularists and zealots and chose the zealots. In all the elections after it people participated en masse in voting for the regime that applies these rules.

Either you accept this as democracy in action or just plain say it, democracy is good as long as you like the results.


Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


Muslim minorities in western countries have far more freedom than the other minorities in Muslim countries. Muslims only recognize Christians and Jews as minorities and still treat them not as equal as Muslims. 


I think we killed this discussion many moons ago. Muslims in Europe can't build mosques, slaughter animals the way they like, even import animals slaughtered the way they like, are hackled, targeted by security apparatus, live in Ghettoes and if the jews didn't circumcise their boys the old inquisition test would have been applied to see if muslims committed the crime of circumcision.

Christian and Jewish minorities have all the rights and then some in muslim countries. The state never persecuted them in the same zeal "secular" European state persecute muslims. They are the richest, most highly educated, most protected section of society. For a long time they were overrepresented in society and politics leading the armies of three Arab nations and being prime ministers in 4 others even today leading the revolution in Syria just as their co-religionists are leading militias to slaughter Sunnis in villages near them. No one dares raise child sex abuse in churches in Muslim countries because of fear it might upset them.

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:



Women have limited rights in Sharia based countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and former Afghanistan Emirate. 
Since Iran was a pro-western monarchy up to 34 years ago and many women adopted the western values it was relatively hard for mullahs to enforce their Islamic way upon Iranian women. There is a strong female resistance to the regime advances. Saudi Arabia being traditionally conservative caused the Saudi women to succumb to their faith. Lack of enough support inside the Saudi society kept their women under the yoke of Sharia law. In Saudi Arabia women can not vote, drive a car, or go out without a relative male companion and countless other restrictions. There are Islamic behavior patrols checking on how Saudi people behave in public and so on... This shows how free women are in Saudi Arabia.

About minorities and religious tolerance, just tell me what happens if a Saudi Arabian converts to a religion other than Islam and wants to live inside Saudi borders. Do you have non-muslim Saudi Arabian citizen?



3 examples are hardly a proof. And in any case there are 50 other muslim majority countries most of them with "sharia based" family laws that don't have these restrictions. Conversely discrimination against women is codified in many civil and common law countries and we see little of the outcry we see about it in muslim countries.

And in the end keep in mind it is in the hand of women to change their status. The Muslim brotherhood believe it or not won because of the female vote not despite it. Women are far more conservative than anytime since the 1920s and this is across the muslim world.

In the end if women chose to live like this it is their choice.


Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


Abortion, divorce and rest if they are being enacted in a parliament in a democracy then it shows the will of the majority. If you notice each US state has its own laws which represent the will of that state toward that issue. If a person goes to another state for an abortion, the residential state can not ban the person from the operation. The problem with religion and here fundamentalist enforcing it upon people through non-democratic way is what I was referring to. US has no state religion and you can practice whatever you believe in as long as you do not physically harm other people. 



Then if the MB and the Salafists (elected by 68% of the people) decide to enforce "sharia" are you willing to accept the results?

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


I recall a Saudi Arabian court ruled a death penalty for a guy who was suspected of witch craft not long ago. Iranian regime prosecute any religion or believe they think contradict with Islam. According to Iranian constitution only Christian, Jews and Zoroastrians considered religious minorities. Even those minorities have been systematically pressured.


Now, I cherish western democracy because it has many modern and moderate concepts such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, free market, elective process instead of selection, checks and balances among different branches of government and impeaching power of congress (Congress can impeach president and take down from power).


Germany, Poland, Hungary all state in the constitution which religion is acceptable. In Hungary Islam was forgotten but later added. How is that different from Iran and why they can get away with it while Iran can't?

As for "western Democracy" well here is news to you. Western democracy is all about free and fair elections where power is transferred through a peaceful manner and lawful. Nothing more, nothing less. And Europe already achieved this level well before elections became the norm because the state was so institutionalised that by the time of the enlightened despots, they could not rule as dictators even if they wanted to.

All other things you attribute to "western Democracy" are BS. Half of the current EU members are not secular at all. The Church and the State and one and the same for Greece and Cyprus, all other Balkan states give the Orthodox or Catholic churches a special constitutional status. Europe as a whole had more free speech in 1913 than now and the same applies in 1813 as well when there were no democracies in Europe. As for the free market, nearly all dictatorships had free market and in fact as one Heritage foundation dude on said "Democracy is incompatible with the Free Market".

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


The only people who may get offended by french law are ultra conservative Muslim women who cover their face. Since this is a security issue I don't sympathize with them, but the anti-minaret law in Switzerland is an obvious double standard. The majority of Muslims have no problem with anti-burka law. Their real problem is something else. I know some people who live in France and as I have heard, Morocans and sometimes Arabs have problem finding jobs because of the way society look at young Morocans. The rest is the mood of society toward who you are and where you come from and I do not deny that. The way Ahmadi nejad has ruined the way people look at Iranians. 9-11, Muslim affiliated terrorism, extremism, influx of running refugees, dictatorship and wars of ME made people to look at us differently. I have seen the terrified looks and reaction of many American people when interact with Middle Easterns.  I admit it is not what a person expects while he/she is coming here to live. It is not perfect, but still far better than my original country.




Here is a new one. Just because a small number of people will hurt from the law its OK? I can say the same thing about Churches, only 2% go to church so why waste a perfectly good real estate on a place not attended by anyone?

The real hate in the west didn't happen after 9/11, it happened well before that. Indeed one might argue that 9/11 started a honeymoon that didn't last long. The anti-Hijab laws and anti-Minerate laws were already on municipal books and nationally discussed.

9/11 simply made the hate more mainstream as public officials started saying what they have been saying in private for decades.

Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Oct 2013 at 14:31
Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:

Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

I'm quite sceptical that Turkey is providing weapons to rebels. But it's indeed true Turkey provided non lethal aid including logistical, organizational and intelligence support with a limited extend.
Pay a visit to a border town, ask around from the local inhabitants and pay close attention you will find it out. This is how UN reporter find out about it. I even saw a BBC report about it. There were photos of Turkish military escorting the rebels to the Syrian border near the dawn.
That's non-lethal aid and it's limited. Rebels can't get support at any time they want. 
the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 04:52
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:

Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

I'm quite sceptical that Turkey is providing weapons to rebels. But it's indeed true Turkey provided non lethal aid including logistical, organizational and intelligence support with a limited extend.
Pay a visit to a border town, ask around from the local inhabitants and pay close attention you will find it out. This is how UN reporter find out about it. I even saw a BBC report about it. There were photos of Turkish military escorting the rebels to the Syrian border near the dawn.
That's non-lethal aid and it's limited. Rebels can't get support at any time they want. 
Do not believe the political speeches. Turkey is very active in arming Syrian rebels. War and politic are both dirty. As I said I was referring to two different sources which already confirmed Turkish military involvement in Syrian civil war. 

1. UN human rights reporters
2. BBC channel Reporter.

Google them and you will find it. I


Edited by Harburs - 23 Oct 2013 at 04:54
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 2013 at 16:14
Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:

 
Do not believe the political speeches. Turkey is very active in arming Syrian rebels. War and politic are both dirty. As I said I was referring to two different sources which already confirmed Turkish military involvement in Syrian civil war. 
1. UN human rights reporters
2. BBC channel Reporter.

Google them and you will find it. I

I hope it was the case because I'm quite dissapointed from Turkey's weak support of the Rebels.
the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 2013 at 16:36
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:

 
Do not believe the political speeches. Turkey is very active in arming Syrian rebels. War and politic are both dirty. As I said I was referring to two different sources which already confirmed Turkish military involvement in Syrian civil war. 
1. UN human rights reporters
2. BBC channel Reporter.

Google them and you will find it. I

I hope it was the case because I'm quite disapointed from Turkey's weak support of the Rebels.
I don't think getting involved in Syrian mess, will help Turkey in any positive way. It will radicalize Kurdish and Alavi minorities in Turkey. It will boost up some radical jihadists in Syria and infuriates the bloodshed. I am sure as long as either side is arming the rebels or the government this mess will become worst. I just love to see Iranian regime loses its control  over Syrian corridor (toward Hizbullah) and gets weak, but I also want Syrians to have a better government. Another radical fundamentalist regime will destabilized all neighboring countries specially Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey. 

All things aside this will be another financial drain for Turkey if it gets involved in larger scale. Iran fought with Pakistan in 1990s through proxy and it was expensive. Iran supported the Northern Alliance, but if it was not for Indian and Russian support, Iran would have withdrew from that mess due financial cuases and potential direct conflicts with Pakistan.


Edited by Harburs - 02 Nov 2013 at 04:25
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.