• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Syrian army retakes Homs; terrorists flee

Status
Not open for further replies.

Azih

Member
They've failed to produce an evidence of terrorists in Bahrain.

Unlike the Syrian Gov claim of militants presence that was confirmed by 1) media reports 2) congressional hearings 3) AL monitors 4) Youtube 5) Head of the FSA showing up on TV claiming responsibilities 6) Al-Zawihiri of Al-Qaeda calling for his fighters to head to Syria.

and the US/France/Britain/GCC are looking for ways to send them more Arms. on record.
That happened for Libya as well. And Libya had a Free Libya Army also.

Militants presence != terrorists. And surely the fact that Al-Qaeda was calling for Qaeda fighters to GO to Syria means that they weren't there initially yeah?

What I'm asking you to consider is that the Bahraini and Syrian examples have many parallels. The fact that three are Libyan parallels as well shouldn't diminish that.
 

Agnostic

but believes in Chael
I'm supporting the terrorists. Good luck to my comrades and I hope a bullet for Assad is in the future.
 
i don't see a difference between the tyrant dictator and the so called "freedom" fighters

Perhaps its that people are allowed to determine their fate instead of one person at the top. As the poster above said, if the people who take over for the dictator caused ruin then we'll support another revolution.
 
I'm just saying, they are not our friends. If and when they take over, they will not be any better to us than Assad probably. They're wahabi/salafi (similar to Saudi Arabia's, and even Taliban's ideologies) while Assad and a majority of the government that are Alawi (offshoot of Shia). It's turning to a big sectarian issue over there.

People dont realize this. Shia's have proven to be able to live in peace with christians and jews (as proof of Iran), while Wahabis would slay them (and the Shia) where they stood.
 
Subscribe.gif

done and done.
 
isn't that what they did during the Iraq/Iran war?

Lol no. They supported Iraq 100% , even though he was massacring his own people in the tens of thousands and was using illegal, horrific chemical weapons.

That never happened though, we don't support dictators *ehem*.
 

Cromat

Member
I don't get it. If Assad has a strong support base within Syria (which he does), why not just put yourself out for elections? If you're well loved by the people then dictatorship is unnecessary.
 
I don't get it. If Assad has a strong support base within Syria (which he does), why not just put yourself out for elections? If you're well loved by the people then dictatorship is unnecessary.

Well, he did have a referendum like 2 days ago and a new constitution was approved to allow multiple different parties to participate, so it's a start.
 

Cromat

Member
Well, he did have a referendum like 2 days ago and a new constitution was approved to allow multiple different parties to participate, so it's a start.

Why not do it on day one? Why not do it ten years ago? Why only after one year of civil war?
If the country is in such a terrible condition, why shouldn't he just resign and call for immediate elections supervised by international observers?
 

A.R.K

Member
I thought thread title was a mistake. Found out that the OP is a big moron and troll. You just dismissed 100s of innocent lives that were taken by this asshole dictator by labeling everyone as a terrorist.

OP just pissed me off for real.
 

liger05

Member
God willing Assad and his army will get the punishment they deserve. Assad deserves nothing than to be dragged through the streets like a dog.
 

noah111

Still Alive
I thought thread title was a mistake. Found out that the OP is a big moron and troll. You just dismissed 100s of innocent lives that were taken by this asshole dictator by labeling everyone as a terrorist.

OP just pissed me off for real.
Hate to break it to you but that's what a large (arguably majority) of syrian citizens believe as well.

Why not do it on day one? Why not do it ten years ago? Why only after one year of civil war?
If the country is in such a terrible condition, why shouldn't he just resign and call for immediate elections supervised by international observers?
If he had done that when he first took office following his fathers death, I am sure many in the country would have denounced him as weak and trying to get out of a responsibility he was not ready for.

That kind of talk is a bit silly, to think assad is really the one in ultimate control is wishful thinking. Nothing is as organized here as some people are making it out to be.
 

Cromat

Member
If he had done that when he first took office following his fathers death, I am sure many in the country would have denounced him as weak and trying to get out of a responsibility he was not ready for.

That kind of talk is a bit silly, to think assad is really the one in ultimate control is wishful thinking. Nothing is as organized here as some people are making it out to be.

Are you seriously justifying thirty years of dynastic dictatorship? If the Syrian people loves Assad and believe in his way, then he should have just allowed democracy and all the freedoms that come with it.

The fact that he didn't means that his credibility is very low indeed. I admit I don't know the real situation in Syria. Maybe it is a revolt led by blood-hungry Al-Qaeda mutant pedophiles. But that does not justify the existence of a authoritarian regime backed by a small family and its supporters. That is not just.

I know people who lived in Syria until the 1990s. They told me how they were forced during school days to rally in support of Hafez Alassad. They told me they truly and honestly loved their president, but that was because they were surrounded by a complete and total, 24/7 propaganda machine. The image of Assad was in their school, on their notebooks, above their blackboard, on television, and in every shop.

It's crazy and it has no place in the 21st century. No one should support it or justify it in any way.
 

Jackpot

Banned
i don't see a difference between the tyrant dictator and the so called "freedom" fighters

One was actively slaughtering civis en masse. At least the new regime is limited to pockets of sectarian violence. It's not hard to extrapolate the body counts from both scenarios and compare them. *roll eyes*

I have my very own suspicion that they are agents since the Syrian Gov claims that they're still granting license/access for foreign journalists.

Really? So every single Western media oultet and freelance journo is involved in a big conspiracy to pretend they can't get into Syria? Are you mentally defective?
 
One was actively slaughtering civis en masse. At least the new regime is limited to pockets of sectarian violence. It's not hard to extrapolate the body counts from both scenarios and compare them. *roll eyes*



Really? So every single Western media oultet and freelance journo is involved in a big conspiracy to pretend they can't get into Syria? Are you mentally defective?


you make it sound great, in 60 years time im pretty sure the "freedom fighters" and the shitty government that's put into place will match gaddafi's record or even exceed it
 
you make it sound great, in 60 years time im pretty sure the "freedom fighters" and the shitty government that's put into place will match gaddafi's record or even exceed it

You continue to argue against what has taken place to overthrow the dictators and yet you don't offer what you'd be in favor of instead. Give some suggestions.
 
One was actively slaughtering civis en masse. At least the new regime is limited to pockets of sectarian violence. It's not hard to extrapolate the body counts from both scenarios and compare them. *roll eyes*



Really? So every single Western media oultet and freelance journo is involved in a big conspiracy to pretend they can't get into Syria? Are you mentally defective?
Where did I say every single one of them is "involved"? Where did I even accuse anyone? I have my own suspicion of the "freelance journalists" accessing a country illegally and hiding in a terrorist base. I'd like to keep it to myself. I didn't accuse anyone of such activity. It's not necessarily true.
 
You continue to argue against what has taken place to overthrow the dictators and yet you don't offer what you'd be in favor of instead. Give some suggestions.



gather intelligence on the freedom fighters.. we still don't know who they are, what plans and connections they have. look for other groups within the country that promote a better plan, back them in the elections
 

Jackpot

Banned
Where did I say every single one of them is "involved"? Where did I even accuse anyone? I have my own suspicion of the "freelance journalists" accessing a country illegally and hiding in a terrorist base. I'd like to keep it to myself. I didn't accuse anyone of such activity. It's not necessarily true.

No, every single outlet has consistently said Syria isn't permitting entry. Either they are all lying or Syria is full of shit when they say they're still letting journos in. And the only reason to keep them out is to prevent coverage of their atrocities. Pick one.
 
gather intelligence on the freedom fighters.. we still don't know who they are, what plans and connections they have. look for other groups within the country that promote a better plan, back them in the elections

So you are arguing that we should influence the private happenings of another country? That we should support who WE want and not what the people of said country want?

Have you not paid attention to how this has played out in the last 30 plus years of the U.S.? And I say the U.S. because we're one of the most powerful forces internationally, especially in influencing what takes place in elections. Who we support, don't support, etc.
 
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Or, you know, terrorism or something.

(That was sarcasm if anybody's meters were off btw)
 
No, every single outlet has consistently said Syria isn't permitting entry. Either they are all lying or Syria is full of shit when they say they're still letting journos in. And the only reason to keep them out is to prevent coverage of their atrocities. Pick one.
No, That's false. Major western media outlets are actually reporting legally from Damascus and other areas as well. Including BBC and Sky News.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jum8ffLM6zI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jum8ffLM6zI
 
So you are arguing that we should influence the private happenings of another country? That we should support who WE want and not what the people of said country want?

Have you not paid attention to how this has played out in the last 30 plus years of the U.S.? And I say the U.S. because we're one of the most powerful forces internationally, especially in influencing what takes place in elections. Who we support, don't support, etc.


the U.S supported dictators & removed Democratically elected governments in South America and the Middle East.. if we supported the good guys im sure it would have little to no blow back
 
the U.S supported dictators & removed Democratically elected governments in South America and the Middle East.. if we supported the good guys im sure it would have little to no blow back

Who are the good guys? We supported dictators and it had horrible consequences, not just for the civilians of said countries but it had disastrous results for us too as the chickens came home to roost if you will. It's time that we let the people of said countries choose their own future. The people of Syria have stepped up to get rid of Assad. That is their right just as many countries before have done and will do after.
 

LordCanti

Member
Three pages of reading later, and I'm still pretty convinced that Assad is a civilian shelling tyrant.

Am I missing something? Is this opposite day?
 
Who are the good guys? We supported dictators and it had horrible consequences, not just for the civilians of said countries but it had disastrous results for us too as the chickens came home to roost if you will. It's time that we let the people of said countries choose their own future. The people of Syria have stepped up to get rid of Assad. That is their right just as many countries before have done and will do after.

I don't know why do you keep talking on behalf of the Syrian people. The recent vote turnout for constitution referendum was high. That indicates that the Syrian people want to have reforms, peacefully. Unlike the West and its dictator allies (Saudi/Qatar) who want forced regime change.
 

Jburton

Banned
well, the army have entered homs ONLY which was the base of terrorists attacks AGAINST civilians, civilian from other sects than the militants, security personnel and the Capital Damascus. so there is nothing innocent about "Baba Amro".

Syrian forces have been killing civilians left and right in Homs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom