Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/14/13 02:15 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Israel is at least a second going first world, seeing as they are one of the most westernized countries and one of our key allies in the region

So what?

At 6/14/13 01:35 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 6/14/13 01:06 AM, Korriken wrote: naturally. once the sectarian issue is settled who are they going to turn on? who else? non muslims.

Who is "they"?

the extremist pigs of course.

The sectarian issue is likely never going to be settled, and we're going to witness ethnic cleansing campaigns like what happened Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Obviously. the fighting will eventually have to end, even if for the lack of people to fight. group a burns a city full of group b, group b's militants get pissed off and burns a city of group A, Group C, fearing for their own safety burns a city of group a and group b... and so on.

There's no organization here, there's dozens and dozens of groups with varying radicalism working here. These loosely connected networks are going to immediately fall apart after the civil war aspect of this is over with.

thats precisely what I'm talking about.

Whether Assad falls or the rebels are defeated is moot at this point, that's only going to be the beginning. There's going to be a purge to wipe out dissenters and this will inevitably fall among ethnic/religious association. Wiping out non-Muslims is the sectarian issue.

Sunnis hate Shiites, Shiites hate Sunnis, both hate everyone else.

We don't give a shit about civilians. It's not going to be about them. It's going to be about Iran and Russia pumping billions of dollars worth of aid in a rapidly destabilizing region. This isn't hard to figure out.

it's going to end in an Islamic Theocracy that supports terrorism anyway.

Oh gee you're so cool with your blithe attitude and the hopes that millions of Muslims will die. Cool!

I'll assume you have nothing. also, i don't give 2 shits about 'being cool'. I'm looking at it from a logical perspective. if the west sends in military aid, it'll eventually be turned against them. if the west sends in humanitarian aid, they will be attacked, much like in any other Muslim nation. If they fight and kill each other, that's less for the west to be worried with. every dead muslim is one less muslim reproducing and creating potential extremists in the future.

Religion of Peace indeed.

Wow, haven't heard that one before. Will you be here all night?

bite me.

Meh.

I don't like what Assad is doing, but then again, I don't trust the rebels to not turn around and do the same thing, but with an extra bite, funding terrorism against the US.

Entering this war is like choosing between two meals: a shit omelet, and a shit pizza.

Let's get one thing settled, if you hated Iraq and yet are so eager to enter this, then the real "fuck you" is reserved especially for you. And no Fim or Feoric I'm not targeting you, I will however do so if you also believed Iraq to be a mess.

This is the shit that pisses me off, when we entered that hell-hole all the liberals flipped out about what would happen and how we'd fuck up the country, then we booted Saddam and his Baathist asshole com padres and we had a stable country.

Then Dubya retardedly disbanded the army and let all hell brake loose, and liberals continually bitched about us making a mistake how we're doomed and we fucked over a country we had no right in being (Ironically despite all the bloodshed that's occurred the country is actually a relatively stable democracy).

Now we have Assad, who unlike Saddam, has showed no intention of aggression on us in recent and past times, and now all the people on left, ironically those who opposed US involvement in Iraq, want us to throw away more lives for some low-life jihadists who will turn on us the second they handle Assad.

Now I know Assad's a tyrannical despot, and he should be ousted, but these rebels will be no better than them. Yes there are good moral people involved in the rebellion, and it's unfortunate that innocent lives have been killed.

These rebels though are not a combined resistance they're a ragtag group made of ordinary citizens taking up arms (who are the real heroes in all of this and should be applauded) to some Chechen/Afghan/Persian Mujaheddin pissed off at any secular.

They are the enemies in this, and the rebels are doing nothing to repel them from their ranks.

Now let's be big boys here, the world is not black and white, my country has done shady deals with sick people in the past, but it was done for their own interests just as the rebels are doing, and I understand that, they need them to help them depose Assad, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and to the Syrian rebel that is true and should be encouraged.

But as the United States of America, our enemy IS that Muhj shit head, and we can not simply arm the rebels as they will then pass such ammunition to their radical allies, who in turn will only use that to hurt us.

So to those of you asking you see no solution, when in reality there is, nothing.

Face it we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't UNLESS, these rebels will kick out the radical elements, which are as a rebellion they shouldn't and more importantly won't then we can do nothing to aid them. There is no bonus for us in this.

Now you can complain about the unfortunate families that are being killed by Assad and his cronies and how awful it is to simply let this happen, and it is, but what we shouldn't allow is an American family crying over the loss of their loved ones because they're mother/father/brother/etc. was killed over seas fighting to remove a dictator only to be shoot dead in the streets by the rebels they were aiding.

And let's stop the bullshit right here, no an American Life has no more value than a Syrian's, but as an American myself, I feel for my countrymen first, and don't think for a fucking second that any Syrian rebel would put your life over their own countrymen's first.

I'm sick of this bullshit where because we're the Superpower it's our job to cry for everyone and help other countries before our own, when hardly any country on this planet would ever do the same.

This syrian situation sucks,and the only thing we can do is diplomacy, and that's it, aiding anyone on either side is going to bite us in the ass.

At 6/14/13 12:15 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: well technically Iran was a revolution against the US backed Shah and we had no real control over that or even try to fix.

I meant the Iran-Iraq war. The US funded and armed both sides during the war so that neither becomes the dominant power in the region. Thus when Iraq's invasion of Iran failed the Iranian counter offensive into Iraq turned out to be a failure as well.

At 6/14/13 07:40 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: because US-Israeli are an important factor in the United States government's overall policy in the Middle East, and a little nudge of aid to make sure one of our most solid allies (and Regional superpower) is secure from outside threats IE arab countries which have targeted it numerous times over the years. and that military aid makes it so it has some of the best military and defense infrastructure.

I'm not getting this at all. You're the guy who has JOIN AIPAC in his sig so this is really surprising. From Israel's perspective, they're itching for Assad to lose. The trouble is that Assad's forces had been consistently defeating the rebels with Hezbollah's help as of late. What if the rebels don't topple the regime? Let's assume Lebanon doesn't collapse into another civil war (which is a whole nother story and a very real threat): now we have Assad, a pro-Iranian dictator ruling a country ravaged by (presumably) years of civil war full of Islamists, jihadists, Hezbollah fighters and Assad supporters who are no doubt going to participate in the much feared ethnic cleansing campaigns (should that come to fruition). Now you have Israel sandwiched between the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the shitstorm over in Syria. Is that a good deal for Israel? Is that good for our foreign policy? What about our other allies in the region like Turkey? Everything you're saying here is explaining why the US should intervene, whether directly or indirectly (and this includes giving aide to Israel. Let's not kid ourselves here and just admit that Israel is a proxy for the US).

At 6/14/13 10:12 AM, Korriken wrote: the extremist pigs of course.

You're not actually saying anything, or answering my question. The country is loaded with extremists. There's no hivemind. They're not all thinking the same thing. They all have different philosophies, different goals, and different methods of doing things. Which extremists are you talking about? al-Nusra? Hezbollah? Radical Alawites? Radical Shias? Radical Sunnis? If you think all of these groups have "murder all non-Muslims" playing on repeat in the back of their minds then you need to stop watching Glenn Beck.

Obviously. the fighting will eventually have to end, even if for the lack of people to fight. group a burns a city full of group b, group b's militants get pissed off and burns a city of group A, Group C, fearing for their own safety burns a city of group a and group b... and so on.

That's not how it's going to play out. Everyone knows where they fall and what their role will be depending on the outcome of Assad. Nobody is independent here.

thats precisely what I'm talking about.

You take that a step further and gleefully add that you think this is great and hope that they all kill each other so you can get your daily hard on when you read the headlines detailing how many Muslims were killed in the region that day without realizing the fact that the Middle East/West Asia isn't a vacuum and that plenty of countries have all sorts of different stakes in carving out the area to better suit their own agendas. What you're hoping for is not only going to result in the senseless deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, but also certainly drag us into it because it will warrant military action to protect our interests and allies. It will be a feedback loop and will spill into Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc.

Sunnis hate Shiites, Shiites hate Sunnis, both hate everyone else.

Jesus christ.

it's going to end in an Islamic Theocracy that supports terrorism anyway.

Possibly. Care to explain how you're so sure?

I'll assume you have nothing. also, i don't give 2 shits about 'being cool'. I'm looking at it from a logical perspective. if the west sends in military aid, it'll eventually be turned against them. if the west sends in humanitarian aid, they will be attacked, much like in any other Muslim nation. If they fight and kill each other, that's less for the west to be worried with. every dead muslim is one less muslim reproducing and creating potential extremists in the future.

I think you need to pour some ice water on your crotch to kill the boner you got while typing this.

At 6/14/13 05:35 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: Let's get one thing settled, if you hated Iraq and yet are so eager to enter this, then the real "fuck you" is reserved especially for you. And no Fim or Feoric I'm not targeting you, I will however do so if you also believed Iraq to be a mess.

This is the shit that pisses me off, when we entered that hell-hole all the liberals flipped out about what would happen and how we'd fuck up the country, then we booted Saddam and his Baathist asshole com padres and we had a stable country.

Then Dubya retardedly disbanded the army and let all hell brake loose, and liberals continually bitched about us making a mistake how we're doomed and we fucked over a country we had no right in being (Ironically despite all the bloodshed that's occurred the country is actually a relatively stable democracy).

Now we have Assad, who unlike Saddam, has showed no intention of aggression on us in recent and past times, and now all the people on left, ironically those who opposed US involvement in Iraq, want us to throw away more lives for some low-life jihadists who will turn on us the second they handle Assad.

Hold your horses, bud.

1) I can't speak for Fim but I hope the US stays the fuck away from this mess if I haven't made this clear. My posts here started out mocking the US and outlining how the situation has gotten worse, but then I felt the need to point out that some people here were "right" (as far as non-intervention goes) but for extremely wrong, bigoted and callous reasons.

2) It's been repeatedly mentioned over and over again that there are no troops being sent to Syria. At the very most we'll be sending over small arms on top of continuing to providing non-lethal aid, training, and equipment like we have openly been doing for quite some time now.

3) Let there be no mistakes about why we're doing what we're doing:

"To your humble blogger, this is simply the next iteration of the unspoken, brutally realpolitik policy towards Syria that's been going on for the past two years. To recap, the goal of that policy is to ensnare Iran and Hezbollah into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible. This is exactly what the last two years have accomplished... at an appalling toll in lives lost.

This policy doesn't require any course correction... so long as rebels are holding their own or winning. A faltering Assad simply forces Iran et al into doubling down and committing even more resources. A faltering rebel movement, on the other hand, does require some external support, lest the Iranians actually win the conflict. In a related matter, arming the rebels also prevents relations with U.S. allies in the region from fraying any further."

At 6/14/13 10:33 PM, Feoric wrote:

the extremist pigs of course.

You're not actually saying anything, or answering my question. The country is loaded with extremists. There's no hivemind. They're not all thinking the same thing. They all have different philosophies, different goals, and different methods of doing things. Which extremists are you talking about? al-Nusra? Hezbollah? Radical Alawites? Radical Shias? Radical Sunnis?

Whoever comes out on top when the dust settles. One of them is going to win. Either Assad, the alawites, and shiites are going to take out the rebels, then the massacre of many Sunnis will occur, or the Sunni rebels will win and then the massacre of many shiites and alawites will occur. We're dealing with medieval style warfare with modern weapons.

the one thing holding a salafist group together is a call to arms against those who believe something order than what they believe. once one side decimates the other, the winners will need a new target to fight.

Many of these fighters, if not given an enemy will move on to another likeminded group who is fighting and this will undermine and political power of the those who lead the militias. a person with a large battalion of soldiers behind him has more political power than a person who does not. This has been true for thousands of years, the middle east today is surprisingly like the middle ages in Europe, a person with an army is basically the king of any land his soldiers can control until another groups removes him from the land.

That's not how it's going to play out. Everyone knows where they fall and what their role will be depending on the outcome of Assad. Nobody is independent here.

Actually, a lot of the militias will be surprisingly independent, unless their leaders end up in positions of power. Look at Libya, many of the militias are still operating outside of the government's control long after the new government is set up. They even stormed the American embassy to Libya, the Libyan government did not go after them. Just goes to show how weak the Libyan government is.

Then again, many middle eastern governments are deceptively fragile.

You take that a step further and gleefully add that you think this is great

groups that hate our way of life killing each other is preferable to having to deal with them with our own resources.

and hope that they all kill each other

I do hope the extremists kill each other to the last man. The civilians caught up in it is regrettable, but that's war for you.

so you can get your daily hard on

i love debating with people who make baseless assumptions about the other person in a pathetic attempt to bolster their own argument

the Middle East/West Asia isn't a vacuum and that plenty of countries have all sorts of different stakes in carving out the area to better suit their own agendas.

Perhaps, and It'll be fun to watch that play out. This could be the beginning of another major power shift in a large part of the world, or perhaps the beginning of something even bigger.

What you're hoping for is not only going to result in the senseless deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, but also certainly drag us into it because it will warrant military action to protect our interests and allies. It will be a feedback loop and will spill into Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc.

senseless? Perhaps, but in the end, for the most part, this is the dry undergrowth catching fire once again.

The problem with it all is this has been building up for decades, if not longer. what we're seeing is the equivalent of a forest fire after the forest has been allowed to accumulate too much dead undergrowth. the fire will eventually rage out of control, its only a matter of time. all we can (or should) do is help secure our allies borders and wipe out the groups that try to cross them.

Jesus christ.

they hate him too.

Possibly. Care to explain how you're so sure?

well, there is that chance Assad holds onto power, then he he'll have to kneel to those who saved his ass. They're not going to let Assad off without paying them back. If Assad is overthrown, who do you think gets to set up the new government? the rebels. they won't be able to set up anything without appeasing the extremist groups who will want sharia law put into place along with Islamic courts to dish out Islamic justice.

I think you need to pour some ice water on your crotch to kill the boner you got while typing this.

You seem have a fetish for other men's boners. It's a little creepy.

At 6/14/13 11:21 PM, Korriken wrote: Whoever comes out on top when the dust settles. One of them is going to win. Either Assad, the alawites, and shiites are going to take out the rebels, then the massacre of many Sunnis will occur, or the Sunni rebels will win and then the massacre of many shiites and alawites will occur. We're dealing with medieval style warfare with modern weapons.

Keep in mind this started off by you saying "once the sectarian issue is settled who are they going to turn on? who else? non muslims." It doesn't matter who wins. Thousands of people are going to die regardless. There are no good guys. That's what I keep telling you. The sectarian issue is not going to be settled. The civil war will likely not end for years, even decades, regardless if Assad falls or not.

the one thing holding a salafist group together is a call to arms against those who believe something order than what they believe. once one side decimates the other, the winners will need a new target to fight.

A Salafist isn't synonymous with Salafist jihadism, first and foremost. The latter is what you're referring to. What holds them together is mainly their education and their Islamic philosophy, not their bloodlust (as if there's something intrinsic within their DNA that makes them want to kill Westerners). What holds their philosophy together is much more interesting: Takfiri salafism (Al-Qaeda) was pretty much politically dead until NATO and friends used it against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Salafism's rise might have been post-Afganistan, but that was only after it was given a very fertile field to plant its seed. There's also the argument that social isolation is a root cause in how the transnational Salafist movement recruits individuals. This is different from the root causes of a terrorist organization as a whole which can be, often are, rooted in political or socio-economic causes.

But I digress. The point here is that Salafist jihadists are a nuanced group and shouldn't be used as a catchall term for Islamsists/jihadists, nor is it violence which binds them together. Violence is their strategy, don't put the cart before the horse. It's extremely common for Salafist jihadist terrorist cells to run counter to each other. Jabhat al-Nusra is likely who you are referring to, and I agree that they're a huge problem, but so is the self-fulling prophecy that Islamism is a monolith and evil and terrible and barbaric.

Actually, a lot of the militias will be surprisingly independent, unless their leaders end up in positions of power. Look at Libya, many of the militias are still operating outside of the government's control long after the new government is set up.

This is true.

They even stormed the American embassy to Libya, the Libyan government did not go after them. Just goes to show how weak the Libyan government is.

You're flat out wrong. Ansar al-Sharia's HQ was stormed and 10 people were killed by 30,000 protesters who were outraged by the attack. The government then followed up with an investigation and more people were caught.

Then again, many middle eastern governments are deceptively fragile.

The region hasn't really recovered from the power vacuum left behind when the Ottoman empire fell.

groups that hate our way of life killing each other is preferable to having to deal with them with our own resources.

Oh please don't start with the "they hate our freedums" bullshit.

I do hope the extremists kill each other to the last man. The civilians caught up in it is regrettable, but that's war for you.

Nice! I hope you know you're playing on the different side of the same coin.

i love debating with people who make baseless assumptions about the other person in a pathetic attempt to bolster their own argument

No, this isn't baseless when you have multiple posts in this thread frothing at the mouth at the thought of Muslims killing each other in mass while telling us how fun it would be to watch it happen from the sidelines.

Perhaps, and It'll be fun to watch that play out. This could be the beginning of another major power shift in a large part of the world, or perhaps the beginning of something even bigger.

Yeah that's my version of "fun" as well.

senseless? Perhaps,

Yes, senseless. Not perhaps.

The problem with it all is this has been building up for decades, if not longer. what we're seeing is the equivalent of a forest fire after the forest has been allowed to accumulate too much dead undergrowth. the fire will eventually rage out of control, its only a matter of time.

It's already out of control. The tipping point was reached when Assad started shooting at protesters.

they hate him too.

In Islam, Jesus is viewed as a prophet and the final arbiter of who and who doesn't get to go to heaven. Would you like to keep embarrassing yourself on the subject?

well, there is that chance Assad holds onto power, then he he'll have to kneel to those who saved his ass.

It will be Russia and Iran. Hezbollah is there because of Iran. So is Assad. He doesn't need to do anything else.

If Assad is overthrown, who do you think gets to set up the new government? the rebels. they won't be able to set up anything without appeasing the extremist groups who will want sharia law put into place along with Islamic courts to dish out Islamic justice.

That's a good question and I know better than to try to answer it. I can't. Nobody can, because it's likely the war will continue to gain legitimacy as the new ruler of the country. I have no idea what will happen in that case.

You seem have a fetish for other men's boners. It's a little creepy.

The only thing creepy is you openly hoping that thousands of people die for your entertainment.

Oh stop it, these people have never hated our freedom, true, but that doesn't mean they don't have a burning hatred of us already.

And no we will never send boots on the ground I know that but we shouldn't send them small arms either. The last time we tried that in bit us in the ass.

The only noble and decent leader in that mess of mountains and sand was Massoud, and even he, with all his charisma and loyalty was doubled crossed, and had his country overrun by ISI-trained goat-herders who subsequently let Al Qaeda in and gave them their weapons to use freely on Americans and undeserving Afghans and others.

Now look, if we give these people guns they WILL give them to the Extremists. They can not afford not to.

Do you really think they won't give them these arms and lose potential allies, crucial to the overall cause, for some country half the globe away who has done nothing for the Middle East other than rain destruction and death amongst it (in their minds, though in some cases they are correct), just so they can gain an embassy and some distant man's "seal of approval" for the new government.

They don't give a shit about the U.S. or it's interests there, so even if we do arm them, they won't return the favor by stabilizing the region or exerting influence to end sectarian violence. What has Iraq done for us? Go out and make friends with Iran, and China. So what do you think they will do in turn?

And do you think when these men take power, they will be the most calm and rational, one can hope so but it won't be the case. Most likely whoever subdues the population and controls the largest militia will lead the war-torn country.

These people don't give two shits about us, if the roles were reversed do you think they'd be so eager to help the U.S. Fuck,what country other than the U.S. has been so pressured to police and care for the world? I haven't seen France or any other European power be so inclined to go out and remove dictators and establish democracies without frequent request for support from the U.S.

And where has this policy led us? To the country with the lowest approval rating around the globe and treated with scorn abroad.

Look I don't like the situation, and I don't like innocents being killed, but we can not so much as give these people a single bullet. What we can and should do is give them aid in healthcare and diplomacy, work with other countries to try and oust Assad, enforce sanctions on government held cities and the like, but what we can not is aid the rebels, it will only back fire.

History repeats itself, and there is no instance of which the U.S. has successfully armed an outside proxy to our benefit.

It didn't work in Cuba, it didn't work with Nicaragua, it didn't work in Angola, it didn't work in S. Vietnam, it didn't work in Iran, it didn't work in Afghanistan, so why should it work now?

At 6/15/13 01:12 AM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: stuff

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said here.

At 6/15/13 02:21 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 6/15/13 01:12 AM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: stuff

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said here.

Than my bad for laying down that rant on you. Glad we see eye to eye.

Doesn't matter, because the US government is going into Syria, then they're going into Iran. Notice how the actions of a country's dictator only become important when it is their turn to give up the natural resources.

At 6/15/13 12:44 AM, Feoric wrote:

The civil war will likely not end for years, even decades, regardless if Assad falls or not.

Of course it's going to take years. never said it didn't. Unless some sort of Islamic Renaissance occurs where the middle east decides "screw it violence isn't working."

A Salafist isn't synonymous with Salafist jihadism, first and foremost. The latter is what you're referring to.

you know what I mean.

What holds them together is mainly their education and their Islamic philosophy, not their bloodlust (as if there's something intrinsic within their DNA that makes them want to kill Westerners).

no, its not in the DNA, its in their philosophy to spread Islam by the sword if people don't willingly convert as well as purge 'blasphemers' (those of a different sect of Islam or those who denounce Islam entirely). While most moderate muslims are typically content to leave others more or less alone as long as they're submissive to their muslim 'betters', attacks on christian churches in muslim countries are not uncommon when something pisses off the muslims on a religious subject. Typically when this happens the non muslim victims have no protection from the local law enforcement, and sometimes are even attacked by the same people in charge of keeping the peace.

What holds their philosophy together is much more interesting: Takfiri salafism (Al-Qaeda) was pretty much politically dead until NATO and friends used it against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Salafism's rise might have been post-Afganistan, but that was only after it was given a very fertile field to plant its seed.

They didn't have the weapons that they do now either. We gave them the weapons to fight off the Soviets. Big Mistake.

There's also the argument that social isolation is a root cause in how the transnational Salafist movement recruits individuals. This is different from the root causes of a terrorist organization as a whole which can be, often are, rooted in political or socio-economic causes.

But I digress. The point here is that Salafist jihadists are a nuanced group and shouldn't be used as a catchall term for Islamsists/jihadists, nor is it violence which binds them together.

Violence is their strategy, don't put the cart before the horse. It's extremely common for Salafist jihadist terrorist cells to run counter to each other.

Obviously they run counter to each other. Islam is like any other religion, full of sects and rifts.

Jabhat al-Nusra is likely who you are referring to,

One of many. Those groups who share the same or at least similar enough values will work together. those who are of a different sect or have varying beliefs will end up fighting against them.

and I agree that they're a huge problem, but so is the self-fulling prophecy that Islamism is a monolith and evil and terrible and barbaric.

Fundamental Islamists are more like dry shubbery, it doesnt take much to set them alight, and once the fire starts, it spreads through the forest.

Actually, a lot of the militias will be surprisingly independent, unless their leaders end up in positions of power. Look at Libya, many of the militias are still operating outside of the government's control long after the new government is set up.

This is true.

It's true and a serious problem to not only our interests, but the stability of the local governments.

You're flat out wrong. Ansar al-Sharia's HQ was stormed and 10 people were killed by 30,000 protesters who were outraged by the attack. The government then followed up with an investigation and more people were caught.

*facepalm* How in the hell could I have possibly forgotten about that? You're right, I do remember that. Maybe I was thinking of somewhere else? I do remember reading about how the protestors stormed their HQ. I remember laughing at ass off about the irony of it.

The region hasn't really recovered from the power vacuum left behind when the Ottoman empire fell.

This is true.

Oh please don't start with the "they hate our freedums" bullshit.

I never said freedoms. I said our way of life which often runs counter to what Muslims believe.

Nice! I hope you know you're playing on the different side of the same coin.

I'm simply a realist. if soldiers would only fight in open fields away from cities, that would be super. Problem is, that's not what's going to happen. I simply accept that fact.

No, this isn't baseless when you have multiple posts in this thread frothing at the mouth at the thought of Muslims killing each other in mass while telling us how fun it would be to watch it happen from the sidelines.

hell yeah it's going to be fun. About as much fun any other sport. I can't do anything to stop it so why am i gonna stress over it?

Yeah that's my version of "fun" as well.

I'm glad we agree on something.

Yes, senseless. Not perhaps.

A lot of things in the world are senseless.

It's already out of control. The tipping point was reached when Assad started shooting at protesters.

oh no, that's just the tip of the iceberg. by out of control, I mean when the entire middle east is at war with each other, or at least at war with militias running around killing people for various reasons. For now its mostly confined to Syria, when the fire begins pouring out of the borders and engulfing other nations, it's out of control.

In Islam, Jesus is viewed as a prophet and the final arbiter of who and who doesn't get to go to heaven. Would you like to keep embarrassing yourself on the subject?

I'm obviously trolling.

It will be Russia and Iran. Hezbollah is there because of Iran. So is Assad. He doesn't need to do anything else.

That's a good question and I know better than to try to answer it. I can't. Nobody can, because it's likely the war will continue to gain legitimacy as the new ruler of the country. I have no idea what will happen in that case.

Only time will tell. I doubt the fundamentalist Islamists are going to say, "Freedom for everyone!" How exactly it will all pan out is currently unknown. What I do know is that any militia leader who isn't given a position of power will continue to operate their militia outside of the control of the new government, this is what always happens.

You seem have a fetish for other men's boners. It's a little creepy.

The only thing creepy is you openly hoping that thousands of people die for your entertainment.

meh, what do i care? What you're seeing in the middle east today is what was seen in Europe in the middle ages, a bunch of half retarded slack-jaws killing each other for everything and nothing and anyone with enough armed followers are basically their own government who exert their will over the people around them.

I say let is all pan out and let the chips fall where they may, so to speak. Trying to forcefully keep the peace in the middle east is like throwing water on a forest fire. yeah, you can dampen the flame, but in time it's just going to reignite over and over again.

sometimes, you just gotta let the forest burn.

You only hear a lot about religion because it is an important part of their propaganda and naturally that is what is blasting from the speakerphones. Those at the bottom of the command structure may take it seriously but those higher up have different motives.

At 6/15/13 03:18 PM, Korriken wrote: I'm obviously trolling.

I appreciate the honesty at least.

meh, what do i care? What you're seeing in the middle east today is what was seen in Europe in the middle ages, a bunch of half retarded slack-jaws killing each other for everything and nothing and anyone with enough armed followers are basically their own government who exert their will over the people around them.

Stultus quoque, si tacuerit, sapiens reputabitur.

At 6/15/13 04:24 PM, HibiscusMallow wrote: You only hear a lot about religion because it is an important part of their propaganda and naturally that is what is blasting from the speakerphones. Those at the bottom of the command structure may take it seriously but those higher up have different motives.

I would burn the local church to the ground but there is to many mind locked fuck tards that would like to kill me if I did. Take that for what it is.

At 6/15/13 04:24 PM, HibiscusMallow wrote: You only hear a lot about religion because it is an important part of their propaganda and naturally that is what is blasting from the speakerphones. Those at the bottom of the command structure may take it seriously but those higher up have different motives.

Really? Do you seriously think ANYONE is in control of it? If that were the case the whole issue would've been resolved decades ago. There is no way the Israel-Palestine conflict plays into anyones hands. The Arabs have continuously lost wars against Israel humiliating them and making them bad investment choices from the West, the Israeli's are surrounded for thousands of miles by people who want to destroy them and the Palestinians have seen their country dismembered and their people spread across the Middle East being treated as 2nd class citizens even targeted in ethnic cleansing attempts since they are blamed for some of the violence in the Middle East. No one wins out of prolonging the conflict. Well the only ones who could would be Arab leaders who united their people against Israel, even then that hasn't worked either.

This is a troubling issue for all who reside in the region. Through example, the rebels have shown themselves to not be a single group, with many of them holding unacceptable hostile positions. Arming the rebels is not a clear cut solution, and needs to be thought of very carefully. Who could really say what the results would be if the rebels who become armed, in turn, attack other rebels, or use their new weaponry against other targets, outside of Syria.

Even if the rebels win, what do you think will happen? Will they stop at merely attaining power? What will they do with that power?

What exactly to arm them with is another careful question. Would you have powerful weapons in the arms of revolutionaries? Revolutionaries that may decide that they may use their new technologies and weapons against their neighbors?

There needs to be a solution, but there is no answer. Would you have the entire ruling party, soldiers, women, and children executed? Would you have all the rebels eliminated? It seems that may be the goal of either side. Which side of an extermination is the right side?

Giving this more thought, even though it sounds like a terrible idea to arm the rebels, given the presence of extremists, If the USA could somehow manage to push the rebels to invade Iran after toppling Assad, it may be well worth arming the rebels.

Iran is sending in fighters to protect Assad, which means the rebels would have a reason to attack Iran, given Iran may very well try to invade Syria in larger numbers at the rebels advance on the capital.

As far as a no fly zone goes, give the rebels some anti air gear to bring down aircraft from the ground.

if done right, this could play into western hands better than some would imagine.

At 6/16/13 10:44 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Sometimes I wonder if the majority of the middle east was still under European control none of this would happen.

Satire is dead.

At 6/16/13 10:44 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Sometimes I wonder if the majority of the middle east was still under European control none of this would happen.

Actually European control is why it's so violent in the first place. Even when it was under European control it was much more violent than it was now. When the French for example were taking over Syria they used many of the same tactics Al-Assad is now using like firing artillery at civilians. The British on top of that single handedly created the whole Israel-Palestine conflict and had their own share of crimes against humanity to boot (like loading up buses of Arab people then blowing them up). Also you know all these ethnic conflicts going on in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon? Well you have the Europeans to blame for that because they created the boundaries of these states such as Iraq, Syria and Lebanon along with Jordan, Kuwait and Libya and they didn't care about the ethnic groups there, so you have many different Arabic countries who share the same culture, politics and language (albiet with many dialects) but are not the same country because the Europeans arbitrarily said so. At the same time you also have many non-Arab peoples like Assyrians or the Kurds in these countries who lack a country and are being persecuted on top of that, not to mention religious minorities all over Lebanon, Syria and Iraq which are causing even more conflict because the Europeans grouped them together with other religious sects which did not want to be with them.

If you think what's going on in Syria right now is unique or a new thing (which you probably don't given your cynical view of the Middle East) then you're way wrong especially since the Syrian government was overthrown several times constantly and was even a part of Egypt at one point, that trend of destabilization ended with the Al-Asad family and their Ba'athist party (which ironically was very hostile to Hussein's Ba'athist party). Even then this isn't even the first time the Syrian people revolted, they revolted before and Hafez Al-Asad merely did what the French did and killed them indiscriminately (which is probably why the Rebels don't want a peace agreement where Al-Asad stays in power and why Al-Asad doesn't want to concede to the rebels).

Syrian red line crossed is a euphemism for fucking an Arab girl on her period

Of course, the FSA is a bunch of innocent, angelic and never cross any line.

And they give great care to this child. Right, OP?

At 6/13/13 10:20 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: not our problem

That didn't stop us with Iraq or Afghanistan so why should it stop us now?