Arab spring uprises Tunisia/Egypt/Libya/Syria

[DK]

At least summarise the points that video is trying to make.

 

[ExigeEvan]

These posts are getting really annoying, nobody forced you to watch or read anything. You don't have to be sorry, just don't watch it!

Who are you expecting to watch it?

Posting a long YouTube video without discussion, opinion or context is just spam.

 

[BobK]

Pure politics and a shrewd move on Obama's part. He gets the credit for being a paper tough guy by puffing up his chest for a couple of days and wanting to go ahead regardless, then praise for being more level headed unlike those darned Republican warmongers who would be there shooting up civilians already along with the odd combatant. If Congress says yes to military action and it turns out well he gets the credit by saying he wanted it all along, and if it goes bad he just points across the aisle and says, "wasn't me. it was those darned Republicans in the Congress that voted for this mess. P.S. vote for Hilary".

This is how I see it too. He doesn't want their approval, he wants a scapegoat if things don't go well.

I also find myself wondering how likely he is to go it alone if Congress does not give its approval; my guess would be "pretty likely" since this does give him a week to let the near-universal "hell, no" reaction die down a bit. Also given his handling of Libya, although this time around he doesn't have the fig leaf of UN/NATO sanction.

 

[VolkswagenX]

Who are you expecting to watch it?

Posting a long YouTube video without discussion, opinion or context is just spam.

No, starting a discussion about one person posting a video is spam. De video is about Syria. Who do I expect to watch? Anybody who feels like watching it.

 

[Famine]

No, starting a discussion about one person posting a video is spam.

It wasn't a discussion. It was a single comment, from a member of staff, that posting completely contextless videos on their own will not generate any motivation from anyone else to watch them.

De video is about Syria. Who do I expect to watch? Anybody who feels like watching it.

Which is no-one unless there is context given.

The preview image conveys no information that the vague title doesn't convey. If you can find someone who'll glance down at the play button, see it's fifty minutes long and then still click on it, you'll have found someone with excess time on their hands to watch what's most likely barely-true and heftily-biased conspiracy tripe.

Like many of the other videos and news links you've posted and quoted.

 

[Vegard]

Who are you expecting to watch it?

Posting a long YouTube video without discussion, opinion or context is just spam.

This is the Arab spring uprises Tunisia/Egypt/Libya/Syria thread...

What are you on (about).

Does this constitue as spam?:


Seriously though, why don't you use the report function if you think someone is spamming a thread 💡

 

[KSaiyu]

Little common sense guys, if it was 5 minutes then maybe it wouldn't need a comment but 50.... :/

 

[niky]

Posting a fifty minute video without an explanation in a general discussion thread is like reciting "War and Peace" in class and expecting your classmates to actually pay attention.

A summary would be nice for those of us who don't have ultrafast internet (50 minutes on Youtube is approximately four hours for me... even on standard resolution) or an extra hour of life to spend watching a rambling videologue.

 

[Rage Racer]

 

[VolkswagenX]

Seriously though, why don't you use the report function if you think someone is spamming a thread 💡

This:tup: Instead we have a page filled with complaints about a Youtube video and nobody discussing the Arab Spring.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

This:tup: Instead we have a page filled with complaints about a Youtube video and nobody discussing the Arab Spring.

I'm pretty sure that the member of staff who first questioned as to why you posted such a long video without any context or attempt to summarise knows how to behave on GTP.

 

[VolkswagenX]

Al-Qaeda militants kill 24 civilians near Ras al-Ain

Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups operating in Syria, including the al-Nusra Front, are trying to capture Kurdish territories and make them part of a state they want to create in the region.

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

According to media reports, the attack was carried out because the passengers who were from three different villages in Ras al-Ain, supported anti-terrorist Kurdish groups which were formed recently to defend Kurdish population against anti-Syria terrorists.

Bodies of a mother and her 40-days infant were also seen among the dead, which were recognized by their relatives.

Syrian Kurdish leader Saleh Muslim warned on Friday that the Kurd minority is facing an ethnic cleansing by al-Qaeda terrorists.

While there is no end in sight to the bloody foreign-fueled conflict in Syria, another front has been formed between the Kurdish militia and extremist militants in Northern Syria.

Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups operating in the country, including the al-Nusra Front, are trying to capture Kurdish territories and make them part of a state they want to create in the region.

Following deadly attacks on Kurdish regions in recent months, groups of Kurdish militia were formed to protect their people.

Anti-Syria armed groups continue to target civilians amid US threats against Syrian army and government which have made militants find it easier to widen their attacks.

Following worldwide criticism, US President Barack Obama delayed an imminent military strike against Syria on August 31, sending the matter to the Congress to get more support.

SHI/SHI

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1512664

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Not sure why you keep posting this crap while running your hypocrisy about how you dislike Assad, yet still equating most if not all rebels as foreign Al Qaeda members that have no interest in freedom but rather sharia law and oppressing the poor Alawites and Christians.

 

[Touring Mars]

Israel has confirmed this morning that it carried out a joint missile test with the US in the Mediterranean this morning.

Earlier today, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that it had detected two ballistic objects that later fell into the sea.

(source)

 

[Johnnypenso]

The one thing I just can't rationalize is why would Assad do this? He'd have to be completely off his rocker to think he could use chemical weapons indiscriminately and get away with it. Is he off his rocker or is there something else at play here?

 

[Touring Mars]

The one thing I just can't rationalize is why would Assad do this? He'd have to be completely off his rocker to think he could use chemical weapons indiscriminately and get away with it. Is he off his rocker or is there something else at play here?

To President Assad, it is merely a collection of enemy states who object to the use of chemical weapons - from his perspective, the very existence of his state is being threatened, so why rule out the use of a powerful and effective weapon against an existential threat? Assad probably didn't perceive the use of chemical weapons as all that risky until Obama made his infamous 'red-line' comments, at which point he may not have considered such threats as much to be worried about. As the current debacle over intervention is proving, he has good reason to not be overly worried about western intervention. Assad probably made a calculated decision that the benefits of using chemical weapons simply outweighed the risk of incurring an assault from the US on the basis that the only legal way for this to happen would involve a UN Security Council resolution, but Assad would have been given assurances by Russia that such a resolution would not be forthcoming. This being the case, any foreign intervention would be extremely risky for a multitude of reasons, not least because it would not be legal. In other words, he would only be mad to use chemical weapons if there was no way he could get away with it... but the reality is that there is a very strong possibility that he can get away with it. It would appear that "international norms" are not worth the paper they are (not) written on.

edit: A few days ago, the White House confirmed that any US intervention in Syria was "not about regime change" - however, now it is about supporting the rebels ("upgrade the capabilities of the opposition") and allowing Syria to "free itself". So not regime change then. Glad that's clear.

 

[VolkswagenX]

The one thing I just can't rationalize is why would Assad do this? He'd have to be completely off his rocker to think he could use chemical weapons indiscriminately and get away with it. Is he off his rocker or is there something else at play here?

I still wonder who would benifit from a chemical attack? So he must be really stupid if he did do it?

 

[Touring Mars]

Now we are starting to get closer to the real US agenda here...

House majority leader Eric Cantor and House Speaker John Boehner have pledged to support Obama's call to arms, but Eric Cantor has made it clear what he perceives to be the real problem here - never mind President Assad, it is Iran who the US need to be sending a message to:

The Syrian conflict is not merely a civil war; it is a sectarian proxy war that is exacerbating tensions throughout the Muslim world. It is clear Iran is a principal combatant in this conflict, and its direct involvement is an integral part of Iran’s bid to establish regional hegemony. Were Assad and his Iranian patrons to come out on top it would be a strategic victory for Iran, embolden Hizballah, and convince our allies that we cannot be trusted.

(source)

It is increasingly difficult to not believe that Obama's red line on chemical weapon usage in Syria is really just a test case for what the US plans to do when Iran announce that they have developed a nuclear war head - it is already well established that the US will simply not tolerate a nuclear Iran, and that means that there is a de facto red line that Iran cannot cross, according to the US anyway. So what use having red lines if you don't do anything about them when they are crossed.

Don't expect Congress to stop a US war on Syria - it's not going to happen... and that hope of a fresh start with Iran is about to go down in flames as well.

 

[Dennisch]

Well, if all goes to poop in the Middle East, at least let them set up some nice HD cameras, so that if this triggers a nuclear war with Iran, the survivors have something to gaze at after the smoke has cleared.

 

[Dotini]

First things first.

Let's see what the UN determines what the chemicals were. I think it highly unlikely they were sarin.

 

[Touring Mars]

Senator Robert Menendez, Chair of the US Foreign Relations Committee, just said this:

"We need to consider the consequences of not acting. Our silence would be a message to the Ayatollah that America and the world are not serious about stopping their march to acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel would no longer believe that we have their back and would be hard pressed to restrain itself. Our silence would embolden Kim Jong-Un who has a large chemical weapons cache and would send a message that we are not serious about protecting South Korea and the region from nuclear and chemical weapons; and would embolden Hezbollah and Hamas to redouble efforts to acquire chemical weapons, and they might succeed. Clearly, at the end of the day, our national security is at stake."

First things first.

Let's see what the UN determines what the chemicals were. I think it highly unlikely they were sarin.

It doesn't matter what it was, really. In any case, Kerry has already stated that, because the UN are not mandated to establish who carried out the attack, the UN evidence is irrelevant, and that the US is relying on evidence obtained by other means, including intercepted communications, satellite imagery, witness testimony, spies within the Syrian regime/army ranks, and defectors.

 

[Dotini]

If it turns out the CW was pesticide in some jars released accidentally by rebels, or accidentally by incoming government munitions, then it makes a difference.

Let us say we stampede to war on dodgy intelligence, and Syria defends by sinking some US ships with anti-ship missiles, or launching a barrage against Israel. Then real war breaks out with Iran, Syria, Israel, Russia and the US launching everything they've got. Millions die based on a faulty stampede to war.

Anybody with an ounce of sense wants to see rock solid evidence before killing another man. Trained scientists such as TM should be particularly sniffy about using real science to yield up real facts before endorsing a potentially suicidal leap over a cliff with no way back.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm not endorsing what the US is planning to do.

But if and when the evidence points to war crimes being committed against civilians by the state, what in your opinion should be done about it?

I'm extremely worried by the fact that the US are going to go into Syria without a clear plan, without a UN resolution, and for the wrong reasons i.e. that this is really about showing Iran that they mean business when it comes to that other wee red line that is out there, Iran's nuclear aspirations.

But when it comes to holding Assad accountable for his criminal behaviour, the UN has a responsibility to do something - but they cannot act so long as Russia continue to renege on their responsibility as a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council.

A US-led illegal intervention in Syria could be, and probably will be, a terrible disaster - but their is atleast some justification for taking action (albeit the US also clearly have ulterior motives as well), but as far as I can see, there is no justification for Russian intransigence.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If it turns out the CW was pesticide in some jars released accidentally by rebels, or accidentally by incoming government munitions, then it makes a difference.

Let us say we stampede to war on dodgy intelligence, and Syria defends by sinking some US ships with anti-ship missiles, or launching a barrage against Israel. Then real war breaks out with Iran, Syria, Israel, Russia and the US launching everything they've got. Millions die based on a faulty stampede to war.

Anybody with an ounce of sense wants to see rock solid evidence before killing another man. Trained scientists such as TM should be particularly sniffy about using real science to yield up real facts before endorsing a potentially suicidal leap over a cliff with no way back.

I've agreed with most of what you say but I really don't see how we'd lose any ships (I know it's an example) with the armament they are using.

Also even if Congress does vote this down, I still see him making an effort to attack.

 

[Dotini]

I'm not endorsing what the US is planning to do.

But if and when the evidence points to war crimes being committed against civilians by the state, what in your opinion should be done about it?

If and when truly reliable evidence is marshaled that unarmed civilians - as opposed to armed rebels - are victims of war crimes by the state, then the responsible leadership of that state should be indicted and tried, as they were at Nuremberg and as they are by the International Court of Justice at The Hague. It is not the role of a white-hatted cowboy to ride over the mountains and right all wrongs, as in the old western movie, Shane.

 

[Touring Mars]

If and when truly reliable evidence is marshaled that unarmed civilians - as opposed to armed rebels - are victims of war crimes by the state, then the responsible leadership of that state should be indicted and tried, as they were at Nuremberg and as they are by the International Court of Justice at The Hague. It is not the role of a white-hatted cowboy to ride over the mountains and right all wrongs, as in the old western movie, Shane.

Indeed, but it is the responsibility of the UN to enforce international law - but the UN is hamstrung by the fact that Russia will not allow Assad to be held to account regardless of whatever the evidence says. So what then? I completely agree that it should not fall to the US to act alone, without UN support - but in the event that guilt is established beyond doubt, how do you propose to hold the guilty parties to account when the only legal route to do so is thwarted by a state that will not accept a guilty verdict under any circumstances?

 

[Dotini]

Indeed, but it is the responsibility of the UN to enforce international law - but the UN is hamstrung by the fact that Russia will not allow Assad to be held to account regardless of whatever the evidence says. So what then? I completely agree that it should not fall to the US to act alone, without UN support - but in the event that guilt is established beyond doubt, how do you propose to hold the guilty parties to account when the only legal route to do so is thwarted by a state that will not accept a guilty verdict under any circumstances?

The Assad regime has agreed to talking at Geneva about a political settlement.

None of the rebels, from SFA to the al-Nusra front, has agreed to do this or indeed anything at all on a common basis.

When the Hammers of Thor and Mars have forged the rebels into unification, they will agree a settlement at Geneva, which Russia will defend.

I see an Alawite Latakia, Sunni east and Kurdish northeast. The harm done by the British and the French Mandate will have at length been undone.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If and when truly reliable evidence is marshaled that unarmed civilians - as opposed to armed rebels - are victims of war crimes by the state, then the responsible leadership of that state should be indicted and tried, as they were at Nuremberg and as they are by the International Court of Justice at The Hague. It is not the role of a white-hatted cowboy to ride over the mountains and right all wrongs, as in the old western movie, Shane.

Have they not attacked unarmed civilians?

 

[Dotini]

I've agreed with most of what you say but I really don't see how we'd lose any ships (I know it's an example) with the armament they are using.

There are a couple of Russian anti-ship missiles, the Moskit and the Sunburn, which are proliferous in the Russian fleet and also sold to client states, which are said to make the aircraft carrier and other large surface vessels essentially obsolete. They fly at wave crest level at supersonic speeds, then violently climb and dive straight down and explode through and out the bottom of the hull. There is no known defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22 <--- This will get you started.

 

[DK]

I think there is a chance that the rebels could make sarin - the Aum Shinrikyo cult's infamous sarin attack on a Tokyo subway station springs to mind.