One step closer to war with Russia?

[lovelyhead]

Is that the same BBC you call Britain Biased Corporation? Nothing in that article suggests that Islamic State are being pushed back from their new positions gained over the weekend.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/w...in-hamedani-iran-general-killed-in-syria.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-as-russian-campaign-continues-a6689411.html

Don't live all your life in ignorance.

I just used the BBC article because it was the first result returned by Google. But here are more:

https://www.gazettetribune.com/assad-forces-made-significant-gains/4555/

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...-gains-aided-russian-airstrikes/#.VhuJUnpVhBc

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...egain-territories-across-Syria/8181444587253/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/11/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKCN0S506F20151011

I am not saying ISIS are being pushed back. First off all the Syrian army and Russian's need to defeat the enemy on their doorstep. The Syrian Rebels (read only slightly less mental Islamist nutters). Once they are out of the picture then Assads forces will concentrate on ISIS with support from Russia.

Unfortunately Syria is going to be a bloodbath for years to come but a lot of that can be pinned on the West's interference in the situation.

Enough with the ad hominems already.

 

[neoboy]

You leave a big power vacuum long enough and someone is going to fill it, best lesson in inaction for the Western governments right here.

 

[agnes]

Not even read the thread, it's typical tabloid trash, all propaganda.

 

[FoxEye]

It's amazing how many useful idiots there are who get their news from Russia Today and hold its coverage to the same standards as the western media. Then again coming from a Scottish nationalist socialist we shouldn't be surprised.

To address your points:

- If Assad is the mad dog needed to keep order in Syria, why is there a civil war there happening?

You don't see how we had a massive hand in creating Syria's civil war? Because it's blindingly obvious to everyone else.

I guess you don't hold us responsible for the current situation in Libya either?

I suspect you'll find a lot of these commentators are part of Russians paid PR army. Any site that has a Russian article will see a flood of commentators parroting the Putin narrative.

BS. A lot of us are fed up with the west's interference, and aggression towards foreign sovereign countries. We've created so many messes and we just don't learn from our mistakes. Why are we so determined to destabilise the entire region?

At this point Russia is Syria's best hope for getting back to normality. All the US and UK will do is leave a power vacuum by removing Assad, and then they'll either have islamic rule or years of civil war. It's what we do.

 

[scorza]

I am not saying ISIS are being pushed back.

In other words, I was right and you were wrong

First off all the the Syrian army and Russian need to defeat the enemy on their doorstep. The Syrian Rebels (read only slightly less mental Islamist nutters). Once they are out of the picture then Assads forces will concentrate on ISIS with support from Russia.

Unfortunately Syria is going to be a bloodbath for years to come but a lot of that can be pinned on the West's interference in the situation.

Enough with the ad hominems already.

You realise that Hezbollah are a terrorist group right? And Russia is basically acting as their air force at the moment.

People keep claiming that it's all the west's fault for intervening, but there's no evidence of this happening before the Syrian uprising - in fact it would have been a hell of a lot more convenient if western governments could have continued pretending that Assad and his pretty wife weren't raging psychopaths.

 

[ubersonic]

People keep claiming that it's all the west's fault for intervening, but there's no evidence of this happening before the Syrian uprising

No evidence of what happening before the Syrian uprising?

 

[Belly]

Something the BBC will never mention is that Assad is actually popular with the majority of the Syrian population.

I very much doubt that: No elections, Assad an Alawite (Shia) (17% of the population) continuing on from his fathers brutal regime when 75% of the population are Sunni. No NOT in my book.

The majority of Syrians don't want Syria changed from a secular country into a fanatical islamist country.

Quite possibly true but they don't have to jump from one extreme to the other. There are other (predominantly) Muslim counties in the world which are NOT Fanatical Islamists.

 

[ubersonic]

I am not saying ISIS are being pushed back.

In other words, I was right and you were wrong

No that's not what he said (hence why you had to selectively quote him out of context), not being pushed back doesn't mean they are making "significant gains" as you claimed.

 

[lovelyhead]

BS. A lot of us are fed up with the west's interference, and aggression towards foreign sovereign countries. We've created so many messes and we just don't learn from our mistakes. Why are we so determined to destabilise the entire region?

At this point Russia is Syria's best hope for getting back to normality. All the US and UK will do is leave a power vacuum by removing Assad, and then they'll either have islamic rule or years of civil war. It's what we do.

Exactly.

 

[lovelyhead]

No that's not what he said (hence why you had to selectively quote him out of context), not being pushed back doesn't mean they are making "significant gains" as you claimed.

I have to say I am finding it very strange being on the same side of an argument with you Uber!

 

[Ilikeitblackplease]

probably see China over there in the next few days.

 

[OhEsEcks]

probably see China over there in the next few days.

They're already in Africa.

 

[Cosimo]

probably see China over there in the next few days.

They wouldn't mind showing off their military might but too busy exploiting minerals and energy resources elsewhere.

 

[lovelyhead]

Quite possibly true but they don't have to jump from one extreme to the other. There are other (predominantly) Muslim counties in the world which are NOT Fanatical Islamists.

The problem is that you are never going to get a secular country by allowing the rebels to win. Supposing the rebels do win, all that is going to happen is the country will become a Sharia state. It is unclear whether or not the rebels (who would by that point be in charge) would fight against ISIS (it seems doubtful to me).

So the best case scenario if the rebels win would be another fundamentalist Islamic state where other religions are not tolerated. Worst case scenario is ISIS take over and they would have their very own country which would be on par if not worse than North Korea.

No good outcome can occur letting the rebels win. The least bad option is for Assad to win. There would be a lot of bloodshed but at least at the end of it there might be a stable country. Maybe.

 

[FoxEye]

People keep claiming that it's all the west's fault for intervening, but there's no evidence of this happening before the Syrian uprising - in fact it would have been a hell of a lot more convenient if western governments could have continued pretending that Assad and his pretty wife weren't raging psychopaths.

It's really not as black and white as you imagine.

http://theconversation.com/the-malignant-consensus-on-syria-9565

Some claims there that the Saudis have been responsible for anti-Assad uprisings, arming groups within Syria that reject secular states. Not just Assad - but all secular government. You don't think that's something the Saudis would do? It seems very much in line with their MO. We know that ISIS is receiving funding from the Saudis, etc, to the tune of millions of dollars.

And if you think there is such a thing as a secular opposition in the FSA, that has been debunked many times by multiple commentators.

This is the reality of the region. A constant battle between fundamentalist islam and whatever governments don't fit their islamic ideal.

 

[lovelyhead]

It's really not as black and white as you imagine.

http://theconversation.com/the-malignant-consensus-on-syria-9565

Some claims there that the Saudis have been responsible for anti-Assad uprisings, arming groups within Syria that reject secular states. Not just Assad - but all secular government. You don't think that's something the Saudis would do? It seems very much in line with their MO. We know that ISIS is receiving funding from the Saudis, etc, to the tune of millions of dollars.

And if you think there is such a thing as a secular opposition in the FSA, that has been debunked many times by multiple commentators.

This is the reality of the region. A constant battle between fundamentalist islam and whatever governments don't fit their islamic ideal.

Exactly. The Saudis are basically a terrorist state who hate the West but pretend not to. They want Islamic domination of the world. On the surface they are nice to the west as we buy their oil and the West is nice to the Saudis because they need the oil to keep flowing. Behind the scenes though the Saudis are funding any and all islamist organisations in order to further spread their version of islam.

 

[OhEsEcks]

Exactly. The Saudis are basically a terrorist state who hate the West but pretend not to. They want Islamic domination of the world. On the surface they are nice to the west as we buy their oil and the West is nice to the Saudis because they need the oil to keep flowing. Behind the scenes though the Saudis are funding any and all islamist organisations in order to further spread their version of islam.

Plus we have huge arms contracts with the Saudis. We have large arms contracts with the three main states that foster the growth and export of Wahhabism. Which is the most conservative and bigoted form of Islam there is. Which ISIS has taken much of it's cue from.

 

[lovelyhead]

Plus we have huge arms contracts with the Saudis. We have large arms contracts with the three main states that foster the growth and export of Wahhabism. Which is the most conservative and bigoted form of Islam there is. Which ISIS has taken much of it's cue from.

Indeed.

And as if any evidence where actually needed to the Saudi's motivations you need only look at their response to the "migrant crisis". Instead of offering sanctuary to any refugees they offered to build 200 mosques in Germany. I am sure you don't need me to explain the reasoning for doing that.

 

[FutileBreadMachine]

I think the West really made a mistake here. This was a chance to team up with Russia and wipe out ISIS with overwhelming force. Just look what has happened to Libya and Iraq - without a strong leader the country disintegrates into chaos. Who are they supposing will lead Syria if Assad is defeated? He's fighting a bunch of different groups with no one candidate to take over the reins. If he is gone, the remaining forces will just turn on each other as they fight for power.

I think Assad's forces have done some terrible things, but "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" was never more apt.

I thought the invasion of Iraq was mental at the time, and I strongly felt they would not find any WMDs there, and I was against the invasion of Afghanistan as I believed that would be a waste of money and life like all campaigns there, so I have pretty good track record on these things

 

[Werewolf]

I'm getting really tired of the 'Evil Russia helping the Butcher Assad' narrative.

Do you think our government would do anything differently in the event of an armed uprising in the UK? UK, US and co. are getting bootyblasted about this because they wanted Syria to fall like Libya but it's all gone pear-shaped.

You can't look at this as goodies vs. baddies, it's power plays from all sides and the only losers are the people of Syria.

I think one of the key things you're forgetting about the Assad regime, is that it was very brutal before the uprising.

It isn't Assad responding to an armed uprising, but an armed uprising that came about in large part to the history of Assad and co in responding to even peaceful protest or simply calls for basic human rights to be observed. Assad's response was to raise the level of violence from "high" to "kill indiscriminately".

It would be like the UK having had enough of the Ira and carpet bombing NI in response, or every time the IRA etc killed a British police/army officer shelling the areas where the Ira had it's supporters.