PDA

View Full Version : Escalating: Russia Warns USA In Syria



Ethereal
06-19-2017, 02:45 PM
Russia warns it will treat US-led coalition jets in parts of Syria as targets after US downed Syrian plane (http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-shoots-syrian-fighter-jet-syria/story?id=48119895)

By LUIS MARTINEZ Jun 19, 2017, 9:25 AM ET

The Russian Defense Ministry blasted the U.S.'s shooting down of a Syrian fighter jet as a "massive violation of international law" and said it will begin treating U.S.-led coalition jets flying west of the Euphrates River in Syria as targets.

The ministry's comments Monday came after a U.S. Navy fighter jet on Sunday shot down a Syrian fighter jet that dropped bombs on rebel forces fighting ISIS in Syria.

It was the first time the U.S. has engaged in air-to-air combat in Syria, signaling an escalation of the conflict. It is is also the first time an American aircraft has shot down any other country's plane in air-to-air combat since 1999, when a U.S. Air Force F-16 shot down a Serbian Mig-29 during the Kosovo air campaign.

Russia, which is backing the Syrian regime in the civil war, slammed the U.S. action as a violation of Syria's sovereignty.

[...]

The Trump administration continues to violate the constitution, international law, and common sense.

The Congress has NOT authorized a war in Syria against that country's sovereign government. Therefore, ANY act of war committed in Syria against the government is a CRIME.

Moreover, the UN Security Council has not authorized the USA to wage war against Syria's government, making the downing of a Syrian jet a unilateral breach of international law.

Even worse, this is being done to help "rebels" who Trump said during the campaign "we have no idea who they are" and that our biggest problem in Syria was ISIS, not Assad.

By attacking the SECULAR government of Syria, Trump is aiding the TERRORISTS who constitute the bulk of the rebel forces.

Easily the most disturbing aspect of this CRIMINAL escalation in Syria is how it is effecting our relationship with Russia, a NUCLEAR power. Things have gotten so bad that Russia is now treating US aircraft as potential targets in Syrian airspace. This is INSANE.

Americans and their Congressional representatives MUST stop Trump before something truly horrible happens.

Ethereal
06-19-2017, 04:13 PM
It makes sense that Trump supporters and Democrats would want to avoid having this discussion.

Trump supporters would have to reconcile Trump's escalation in Syria with his campaign rhetoric, whereas Democrats would have to reconcile Trump's escalation in Syria with their "Russian collusion" narrative.

In both cases, they're dealing with highly contradictory information that is extremely difficult to reconcile.

decedent
06-19-2017, 04:14 PM
*almost types something*

The Xl
06-19-2017, 04:14 PM
Fuck the western ruling class. Trump isn't excluded from that. What a bunch of insane psychopaths.

Ethereal
06-19-2017, 04:20 PM
*almost types something*

Is that a tacit admission that you cannot reconcile the "Russian collusion" narrative with the increasingly aggressive stance Trump is taking in Syria? It seems he's doing exactly what Hillary Clinton wanted to do there. You should be happy, no?

Ethereal
06-19-2017, 04:21 PM
$#@! the western ruling class. Trump isn't excluded from that. What a bunch of insane psychopaths.
Trump has surrendered his foreign policy agenda to the neocons. Not that this will assuage them, but Trump seems to think it will.

decedent
06-20-2017, 05:51 PM
Is that a tacit admission that you cannot reconcile the "Russian collusion" narrative with the increasingly aggressive stance Trump is taking in Syria? It seems he's doing exactly what Hillary Clinton wanted to do there. You should be happy, no?

*almost answers*

Tahuyaman
06-20-2017, 06:05 PM
This is going to take the predictable twists and turns.

NapRover
06-20-2017, 06:14 PM
Our mission should be: kill Isis

we should leave Assad alone, unless he starts gassing people again. He's not worth going to war with Russia.

Peter1469
06-20-2017, 08:38 PM
Russia is pretty good these days about escalation and avoiding quagmires. They can't afford protracted combat with a peer. And I doubt that could justify applying the nuclear doctrine so far away from Russia.

Ethereal
06-20-2017, 09:51 PM
The Trump administration continues to bog down US forces in another unwinnable, forever war, this time in Syria - a war characterized by nebulous objectives and opaque agendas.


Syria conflict: US jet 'downs Iranian-made drone' (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40344534)

The interventionist establishment in DC is drooling over the potential for a war with Iran. Since they cannot attack Iran directly (at least for now), they seem content to escalate with them in Syria.

Ethereal
06-20-2017, 09:52 PM
*almost answers*

So you have nothing. Not surprising at all.

decedent
06-20-2017, 10:51 PM
Is that a tacit admission that you cannot reconcile the "Russian collusion" narrative with the increasingly aggressive stance Trump is taking in Syria? It seems he's doing exactly what Hillary Clinton wanted to do there. You should be happy, no?

Russia's influence is growing. They are getting increasingly aggressive and agitating the West on the ground, in the air, in the markets, and on the internet. Are you okay with that?

Bethere
06-20-2017, 11:36 PM
Russia's influence is growing. They are getting increasingly aggressive and agitating the West on the ground, in the air, in the markets, and on the internet. Are you okay with that?

Lol.

resister
06-21-2017, 12:45 AM
*almost types something*
18377

Croft
06-21-2017, 12:57 AM
Trump is a prick. No border wall and just neocon bull in Syria. I would prefer a creature like Hillary, at least you know what you're getting. I hope Trump goes to hell.

Cannons Front
06-21-2017, 06:54 AM
Ok well as far as the downing of the Jet, they were bombing a group that we support, guess what we support means? We had people on the ground with them, Special Forces in an "Advisory role" on a "Training Mission". The Syrians and Russians were warned they decided to ignore, scratch one plane. Would you rather we let them bomb our Soldiers? As far as the drones go, the first was shot down after bombing "friendly" (our troops) locations. The second was heading towards a US run Training camp full of our troops.

So how many of our Soldiers are you ok with them bombing?

The Russians will not shoot our planes, they would not come out on the positive end of that, they know it, we know it and so does everyone else. At the same time we will not shoot theirs unless they fire first, they know it and so do we.

Ethereal
06-21-2017, 01:42 PM
Russia's influence is growing.

So is China's. So what? All nation-states attempt to increase their influence, including the USA. Why should Russia be punished or singled out for doing what every country in the world does?


They are getting increasingly aggressive...

No they are not. That is a lie. The US government is the aggressor. Because of them, multiple countries in the Middle East have turned into failed states and havens for terrorists. Russia and Iran are just trying to stop the Sunni Islamist proxy army from destroying every vestige of secularism and moderate Islam in the region.


...and agitating the West on the ground, in the air, in the markets, and on the internet. Are you okay with that?

You dodged the question.

How do you square this with the "Russian collusion" narrative you've been peddling? If Trump is Putin's secret client, then why is Trump escalating in Syria and angering Russia?

Ethereal
06-21-2017, 01:46 PM
Ok well as far as the downing of the Jet, they were bombing a group that we support...

Says who? Let me guess... government officials?


...guess what we support means?

It could mean any number of things. It could simply mean that we or our "allies" gave them money or arms in the past or it could mean our forces are embedded with them.


We had people on the ground with them, Special Forces in an "Advisory role" on a "Training Mission".

Where is your proof of this? The Syrian armed forces have never attacked US forces as far as I'm aware. Why would they suddenly start now?


The Syrians and Russians were warned they decided to ignore, scratch one plane. Would you rather we let them bomb our Soldiers? As far as the drones go, the first was shot down after bombing "friendly" (our troops) locations. The second was heading towards a US run Training camp full of our troops.

So how many of our Soldiers are you ok with them bombing?

The Russians will not shoot our planes, they would not come out on the positive end of that, they know it, we know it and so does everyone else. At the same time we will not shoot theirs unless they fire first, they know it and so do we.
You are making a ton of assumptions about what happened. But where is your proof? Am I right in assuming that you just take government officials word for it that that's what happened? Let's just ignore all the lies and half-truths the government has told in the past, right?

Green Arrow
06-21-2017, 01:52 PM
I predicted this would happen.

Ethereal
06-21-2017, 02:02 PM
I predicted this would happen.

Yes, the interventionists got what they wanted. More proof that the American electorate is not really in control of the government.

Adelaide
06-21-2017, 03:17 PM
*almost types something*

Lol.


18377

Bethere, resister and decedent all thread banned for off-topic and/or trolling responses.

Private Pickle
06-21-2017, 03:25 PM
So is China's. So what? All nation-states attempt to increase their influence, including the USA. Why should Russia be punished or singled out for doing what every country in the world does?



No they are not. That is a lie. The US government is the aggressor. Because of them, multiple countries in the Middle East have turned into failed states and havens for terrorists. Russia and Iran are just trying to stop the Sunni Islamist proxy army from destroying every vestige of secularism and moderate Islam in the region.



You dodged the question.

How do you square this with the "Russian collusion" narrative you've been peddling? If Trump is Putin's secret client, then why is Trump escalating in Syria and angering Russia?
I wouldn't exactly characterize Iran as a defender of secularism nor advocate for moderate Islam.

Common Sense
06-21-2017, 04:03 PM
I wouldn't exactly characterize Iran as a defender of secularism nor advocate for moderate Islam.

More so than say a country like Saudi Arabia.

Private Pickle
06-21-2017, 04:05 PM
More so than say a country like Saudi Arabia.
I'd say they are on par with each other.

Common Sense
06-21-2017, 04:08 PM
I'd say they are on par with each other.

Not really.

Women are represented in Iranian government and aren't in SA.

There are Jewish and Christian communities in Iran. In fact both groups are protected in their constitution.

Women can drive in Iran, hold jobs and go to University.

Private Pickle
06-21-2017, 04:18 PM
Not really.

Women are represented in Iranian government and aren't in SA.

There are Jewish and Christian communities in Iran. In fact both groups are protected in their constitution.

Women can drive in Iran, hold jobs and go to University.
Civil rights =/= Human rights

Iran is well known for it's human rights abuses. Killing of demonstrators, rape, torture and abuse of prisoners, etc. etc.

As a matter of fact the Supreme Leader Khameini is on record as saying that gender equality in Iran was one of the biggest mistakes and an allowance to "Western thought".

jimmyz
06-21-2017, 04:21 PM
Trump is a prick. No border wall and just neocon bull in Syria. I would prefer a creature like Hillary, at least you know what you're getting. I hope Trump goes to hell.

More likely "Trump goes" to Florida for some golf.

Common Sense
06-21-2017, 04:24 PM
Civil rights =/= Human rights

Iran is well known for it's human rights abuses. Killing of demonstrators, rape, torture and abuse of prisoners, etc. etc.

As a matter of fact the Supreme Leader Khameini is on record as saying that gender equality in Iran was one of the biggest mistakes and an allowance to "Western thought".

That may well be true, but in comparison to the US ally Saudi Arabia, they are far better. Clearly still not great, but much of what the west thinks of Iran is fictional.

Trish
06-21-2017, 04:31 PM
Is that a tacit admission that you cannot reconcile the "Russian collusion" narrative with the increasingly aggressive stance Trump is taking in Syria? It seems he's doing exactly what Hillary Clinton wanted to do there. You should be happy, no?

I'm not so certain that Trump is the one calling the shots. He has pretty much left the day to day running to those who he has appointed. I have never served in the military so I don't know first hand but I would think that any military man would think it appropriate to protect an ally. In this case the Syrian aircraft was attacking a US ally so the US took action.

Further, even if Trump did authorize the action I'm not altogether certain he understood what he was authorizing. He seems to change his mind depending on how someone makes him feel. It's very likely that whomever was advising him of the incident phrased it in a way that manipulated Trump to think it was a direct slight towards Trump himself. Since it's pretty much known that Trump does things that benefits Trump and not necessarily because it's the right thing for others or the Country I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he authorized it because they hurt his feelings and not because of any commitment to an ally.

Ethereal
06-21-2017, 04:37 PM
I wouldn't exactly characterize Iran as a defender of secularism nor advocate for moderate Islam.
Assad is the secular faction in Syria. Iran sides with Assad.

Ethereal
06-21-2017, 04:41 PM
Civil rights =/= Human rights

Iran is well known for it's human rights abuses. Killing of demonstrators, rape, torture and abuse of prisoners, etc. etc.

As a matter of fact the Supreme Leader Khameini is on record as saying that gender equality in Iran was one of the biggest mistakes and an allowance to "Western thought".
Iran is religiously oppressive. No one denies that. But they're significantly less oppressive than Saudi Arabia. Iran actually has elections where women can vote and even run for office. Saudi Arabia is a hereditary monarchy where NO ONE can vote, especially not women.

Ethereal
06-21-2017, 04:42 PM
...but much of what the west thinks of Iran is fictional.

I totally agree. But the same thing can be said for countries like Russia and Syria. Much of what the west thinks about them is just propaganda.

Ethereal
06-21-2017, 04:45 PM
I'm not so certain that Trump is the one calling the shots. He has pretty much left the day to day running to those who he has appointed. I have never served in the military so I don't know first hand but I would think that any military man would think it appropriate to protect an ally. In this case the Syrian aircraft was attacking a US ally so the US took action.

Which "ally" was that?


Further, even if Trump did authorize the action I'm not altogether certain he understood what he was authorizing. He seems to change his mind depending on how someone makes him feel. It's very likely that whomever was advising him of the incident phrased it in a way that manipulated Trump to think it was a direct slight towards Trump himself. Since it's pretty much known that Trump does things that benefits Trump and not necessarily because it's the right thing for others or the Country I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he authorized it because they hurt his feelings and not because of any commitment to an ally.

I think you were right the first time around. Trump is not in charge. He's ceded power to the unelected bureaucracy at the CIA and the Pentagon, just like all his predecessors.

Private Pickle
06-21-2017, 05:11 PM
That may well be true, but in comparison to the US ally Saudi Arabia, they are far better. Clearly still not great, but much of what the west thinks of Iran is fictional.

I wouldn't consider that to be "far better"...just ask the Iranian people, international human rights activists, the UN and NGOs.
SA and Iran follow the same political doctrine... Sharia Law.

Private Pickle
06-21-2017, 05:12 PM
Assad is the secular faction in Syria. Iran sides with Assad.

That doesn't mean Iran is a secular nation. Not to mention Assad's own history of human rights abuses...secular or not...

Private Pickle
06-21-2017, 05:15 PM
Iran is religiously oppressive. No one denies that. But they're significantly less oppressive than Saudi Arabia. Iran actually has elections where women can vote and even run for office. Saudi Arabia is a hereditary monarchy where NO ONE can vote, especially not women.

The only problem is Iran kills all the moderate opposition... I wouldn't exactly classify what Iran does as "elections" regardless of whether women can vote or not. Regardless as I've said before Khameini (who isn't elected by the way) wants to roll back gender equality...not advocate for it...

Ethereal
06-21-2017, 05:16 PM
That doesn't mean Iran is a secular nation. Not to mention Assad's own history of human rights abuses...secular or not...
It does mean they're defending secularism and moderate Islam in Syria though.

Can you name a government that hasn't abused human rights in some way?

Common Sense
06-21-2017, 05:17 PM
I wouldn't consider that to be "far better"...just ask the Iranian people, international human rights activists, the UN and NGOs.
SA and Iran follow the same political doctrine... Sharia Law.
I suggest you read up on it. While it is an oppressive regime, it's not nearly as oppressive as SA. If you were a woman or a religious minority, you'd be far better off in Iran than is saudi Arabia.

Private Pickle
06-21-2017, 05:34 PM
It does mean they're defending secularism and moderate Islam in Syria though.

Can you name a government that hasn't abused human rights in some way?

I don't believe Iran is defending secularism when they don't practice it themselves. No for Iran Syria is a strategic ally just as SA is one to the U.S.

All countries have abused human rights in "some way". Regardless that's a false equivalence.

Private Pickle
06-21-2017, 05:44 PM
I suggest you read up on it. While it is an oppressive regime, it's not nearly as oppressive as SA. If you were a woman or a religious minority, you'd be far better off in Iran than is saudi Arabia.

I suggest you do the same.
Fact is Iranian law does not recognize women as having the same rights as men. Why you keep pointing to Iran's treatment of women is beyond me.

Common Sense
06-21-2017, 07:24 PM
I suggest you do the same.
Fact is Iranian law does not recognize women as having the same rights as men. Why you keep pointing to Iran's treatment of women is beyond me.

I point to it because while far from great, it's leaps and bounds better than the US ally Saudi Arabia.

Women have far more rights in Iran than they do in other Muslim nations, including SA. Women in Iran hold jobs, are in government, can play sports, can drive and file for divorce.

None of which can be done in SA.

Private Pickle
06-21-2017, 08:38 PM
I point to it because while far from great, it's leaps and bounds better than the US ally Saudi Arabia.

Women have far more rights in Iran than they do in other Muslim nations, including SA. Women in Iran hold jobs, are in government, can play sports, can drive and file for divorce.

None of which can be done in SA.

You sure you want to stand by that statement? Turkey, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Jordan just to name a few? I could go on. And you're telling me to read up on it?

Meanwhile in Iran:


The Iranian legislation does not accord the same rights to women as to men in all areas of the law.[58] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#cite_ note-mehr2007-58)


In the section of the penal code devoted to blood money, or Diyya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyya), the value of woman's life is half that of a man ("for instance, if a car hit both on the street, the cash compensation due to the woman's family was half that due the man's")[59] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#cite_ note-59)
The testimony of a male witness is equivalent to that of two female witnesses.[58] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#cite_ note-mehr2007-58)[60] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#cite_ note-60)[61] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#cite_ note-61)
A woman needs her husband's permission to work outside the home or leave the country.[58] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#cite_ note-mehr2007-58)

In the inheritance law of the Islamic Republic there are several instances where the woman is entitled to half the inheritance of the man.[62] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#cite_ note-62) For example:


If a man dies without offspring, his estate is inherited by his parents. If both the parents are alive, the mother receives 1/3 and the father 2/3 of the inheritance, unless the mother has a hojab (relative who reduces her part, such as brothers and sisters of the deceased (article 886)), in which case she shall receive 1/6, and the father 5/6. (Article 906)
If the dead man's closest heirs are aunts and uncles, the part of the inheritance belonging to the uncle is twice that belonging to the aunt. (Article 920)[63] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#cite_ note-zarrokh-63)
When the heirs are children, the inheritance of the sons is twice that of the daughters. (Article 907)[63] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#cite_ note-zarrokh-63)
If the deceased leaves ancestors and brothers and sisters (kalaleh), 2/3s of the estate goes to the heirs which have relationship on the side of the father; and in dividing up this portion the males take twice the portion of the females; however, the 1/3 going to the heirs on the mother’s side is divided equally. (Article 924)[63] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#cite_ note-zarrokh-63)

According to Zahra Eshraghi, granddaughter of Ayatollah Khomeini,
"Discrimination here [in Iran] is not just in the constitution. As a woman, if I want to get a passport to leave the country, have surgery, even to breathe almost, I must have permission from my husband."[ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#cite_ note-64)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#Gende r_issues

And SA was never brought up as defending secularism in Syria. No one has claimed SA to be the bastion of human rights. So I'm not sure why you're comparing the two given SA has nothing to do with Syria.

Either way...propping up Iran as giving "women far more rights than they do in other Muslim nations" is simply not true...nor is it true that Iran is in Syria to fight for Syria's secular government.

Common Sense
06-21-2017, 08:50 PM
You sure you want to stand by that statement? Turkey, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Jordan just to name a few? I could go on. And you're telling me to read up on it?

Meanwhile in Iran:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#Gende r_issues

And SA was never brought up as defending secularism in Syria. No one has claimed SA to be the bastion of human rights. So I'm not sure why you're comparing the two given SA has nothing to do with Syria.

Either way...propping up Iran as giving "women far more rights than they do in other Muslim nations" is simply not true...nor is it true that Iran is in Syria to fight for Syria's secular government.

Sorry, I meant to say "some". Clearly not all. Apologies.

Common Sense
06-21-2017, 08:52 PM
I really got to start proof reading these things before I hit post...

Private Pickle
06-21-2017, 08:56 PM
Sorry, I meant to say "some". Clearly not all. Apologies.

No need to apologize. You misspoke. Frankly there are only a few nations worse than Iran, SA among one of them, when it comes to women's rights. Regardless, my point stands. Iran isn't fighting for secularism in Syria anymore than SA is fighting for human rights in Yemen.

Captain Obvious
06-21-2017, 08:57 PM
I really got to start proof reading these things before I hit post...

Fuck it, when the petty grammar nazi's pick up on that you can just write them off.

Ethereal
06-21-2017, 08:58 PM
I don't believe Iran is defending secularism when they don't practice it themselves. No for Iran Syria is a strategic ally just as SA is one to the U.S.

They're a strategic ally precisely because they practice secularism in the Middle East. They are a bulwark against radical Sunni Islamism.

And Saudi Arabia is not our ally. They are our enemy. But they've bribed enough politicians to hide the truth.


All countries have abused human rights in "some way". Regardless that's a false equivalence.

Not really. The US government has slaughtered millions of innocent people in its wars of aggression.

Private Pickle
06-21-2017, 09:15 PM
They're a strategic ally precisely because they practice secularism in the Middle East. They are a bulwark against radical Sunni Islamism.

You mean they are a bulwark against the Sunni. The fact that Syria has a secular government and the Islamic Republic of Iran doesn't is an ideological conflict...not something they agree on and not why they are allied. The reason they are allied goes back to the Iran-Iraq war and a common shared enemy in Hussein and now are allied to combat Israel and the U.S.


And Saudi Arabia is not our ally. They are our enemy. But they've bribed enough politicians to hide the truth.

More like the other way around to control the oil.




Not really. The US government has slaughtered millions of innocent people in its wars of aggression.

Yet you originally referred to "what country hasn't" then pointed to the U.S. We could compare them to Denmark if you like. Either way it's a false equivalence given we were talking about human rights within those countries and not the horrors of war. I could turn that around and say "what country hasn't slaughtered innocent people in wars of aggression"? It's a circular argument based on a logical fallacy.

Regardless, my point stands. Iran isn't fighting for secularism in Syria. They could care less and would prefer a more pan-Islamic government but they have Assad and want to keep him. Khamenei has said with regards to Syria "Wherever a movement is Islamic, populist, and anti-American, we support it.". That doesn't really sound all that secular to me.

Peter1469
06-21-2017, 09:18 PM
Russia's influence is growing. They are getting increasingly aggressive and agitating the West on the ground, in the air, in the markets, and on the internet. Are you okay with that?


Russia is a dying nation. Its population is shrinking- which means its economic potential is shrinking.

I am not sure why people are so fearful of them.

Private Pickle
06-21-2017, 09:32 PM
Fuck it, when the petty grammar nazi's pick up on that you can just write them off.
This wasn't a mistake of grammar...

Tahuyaman
06-21-2017, 10:06 PM
Trump needs to come up with a coherent strategy in Syria. Is the US trying to take out ISIS or Asssad's regime?

I think we should just back out of Syria and let Assad and the Russians have it to themselves. It's a freaking mess and there's nothing we can do to correct that mess.

Tahuyaman
06-21-2017, 10:12 PM
I suggest you read up on it. While it is an oppressive regime, it's not nearly as oppressive as SA. If you were a woman or a religious minority, you'd be far better off in Iran than is saudi Arabia.


The Syrian people are in much worse situation than the people of Saudi Arabia. Also, you would not be better off in Iran. That's just silly.

Common Sense
06-21-2017, 11:02 PM
The Syrian people are in much worse situation than the people of Saudi Arabia. Also, you would not be better off in Iran. That's just silly.
Yes, the people of Syria are living in a war zone.

Would I be better off living in Iran over Saudi Arabia? I don't know. I do know that women are far better off in Iran over SA though.

Tahuyaman
06-21-2017, 11:05 PM
Yes, the people of Syria are living in a war zone.

Would I be better off living in Iran over Saudi Arabia? I don't know. I do know that women are far better off in Iran over SA though.

If you visited Iran, there is a decent chance you would end up in jail or may never return. If you visited SA you wouldn't be facing that possibility.

Common Sense
06-21-2017, 11:10 PM
If you visited Iran, there is a decent chance you would end up in jail or may never return. If you visited SA you wouldn't be facing that possibility.
It depends what you do in either country.

Lots of of people from Canada and Europe visit Iran with no issue.

Tahuyaman
06-21-2017, 11:31 PM
It depends what you do in either country.

Lots of of people from Canada and Europe visit Iran with no issue.


Lots of other people aren't so lucky. Every time some westerner is detained or imprisoned in Iran, people say that they should not have been tempting fate by going there.

Common Sense
06-21-2017, 11:59 PM
Lots of other people aren't so lucky. Every time some westerner is detained or imprisoned in Iran, people say that they should not have been tempting fate by going there.

If you look at the stats, it actually seems more Americans are imprisoned in SA than Iran.

Cannons Front
06-22-2017, 01:02 PM
Says who? Let me guess... government officials? It could mean any number of things. It could simply mean that we or our "allies" gave them money or arms in the past or it could mean our forces are embedded with them. Where is your proof of this? The Syrian armed forces have never attacked US forces as far as I'm aware. Why would they suddenly start now? You are making a ton of assumptions about what happened. But where is your proof? Am I right in assuming that you just take government officials word for it that that's what happened? Let's just ignore all the lies and half-truths the government has told in the past, right?

Well as far as me making assumptions, nothing I said is an assumption it is all based on facts, the fact that you are not aware of those facts do not make them untrue.
As far as proof, there is plenty of it, you however are not cleared to see it.
"The Syrian armed forces have never attacked US forces as far as I'm aware. Why would they suddenly start now" Your awareness is not correct, they have not suddenly started. We have forces on the ground with a number of Anti Assad forces, we have had for some time. That is not a secret really it is public knowledge, you not knowing or noticing does not make it less true.

Ethereal
06-22-2017, 01:40 PM
Well as far as me making assumptions, nothing I said is an assumption it is all based on facts, the fact that you are not aware of those facts do not make them untrue.
As far as proof, there is plenty of it, you however are not cleared to see it.
"The Syrian armed forces have never attacked US forces as far as I'm aware. Why would they suddenly start now" Your awareness is not correct, they have not suddenly started. We have forces on the ground with a number of Anti Assad forces, we have had for some time. That is not a secret really it is public knowledge, you not knowing or noticing does not make it less true.

Okay, so you have zero proof and are just taking the government's word for it. Thanks for clarifying.

Cannons Front
06-22-2017, 01:57 PM
Okay, so you have zero proof and are just taking the government's word for it. Thanks for clarifying.

No my job provides me with all the proof I need, It comes from Soldiers on the ground in theater, After Action Reports, and so forth. As much as you doubt the Official Gov't line....... With Good Reason, You are also believing whatever the media is feeding you.

Private Pickle
06-22-2017, 02:02 PM
Yes, the people of Syria are living in a war zone.

Would I be better off living in Iran over Saudi Arabia? I don't know. I do know that women are far better off in Iran over SA though.
I've already proven to you, with sources, that this isn't true. Regardless, what does SA have to do with any of this?

Cannons Front
06-22-2017, 02:09 PM
If you look at the stats, it actually seems more Americans are imprisoned in SA than Iran.

CS you are correct there are many more Americans in Saudi Prisons than in Iran, you are also correct that in a great many ways Iran is a "better" place to live. Of course if you think about it there should be more prisoners, there are many Americans that live in Saudi, very few for Iran, but there are some.

Society again you are correct Iran is far more westernized that Saudi, I would not prefer to live either place

Ethereal
06-22-2017, 02:20 PM
No my job provides me with all the proof I need, It comes from Soldiers on the ground in theater, After Action Reports, and so forth.

Like I said, you cannot back up your claims.


As much as you doubt the Official Gov't line....... With Good Reason...

I doubt it because there is no proof and the government does not always tell the truth. Any reasonable person would doubt it.


You are also believing whatever the media is feeding you.

That is completely false. "The media" is saying essentially the same thing as the government, so if anyone is believing whatever the media feeds them, it's you.

I'm merely exercising rational skepticism and demanding some kind of evidence, which you cannot produce.

US involvement in Syria is moronic, schizophrenic, and illegal. Trump promised not to pursue "regime change" policies in Syria and he also promised to stop supporting these amorphous "rebel" groups, most of whom are just terrorists. He is breaking his promises to the American people and you don't even care.

Cannons Front
06-22-2017, 02:39 PM
Like I said, you cannot back up your claims.
I doubt it because there is no proof and the government does not always tell the truth. Any reasonable person would doubt it.
That is completely false. "The media" is saying essentially the same thing as the government, so if anyone is believing whatever the media feeds them, it's you.
I'm merely exercising rational skepticism and demanding some kind of evidence, which you cannot produce.
US involvement in Syria is moronic, schizophrenic, and illegal. Trump promised not to pursue "regime change" policies in Syria and he also promised to stop supporting these amorphous "rebel" groups, most of whom are just terrorists. He is breaking his promises to the American people and you don't even care.
Look, to start with I was agreeing with your doubting the Gov't, like I said with good reason. In this case however while the gov't line is not 100% the basis is correct, Americans were at risk. My job is as an Operations Specialist (contractor) with the Army, more than that is not available.

As far as
"US involvement in Syria is moronic, schizophrenic, and illegal. Trump promised not to pursue "regime change" policies in Syria and he also promised to stop supporting these amorphous "rebel" groups, most of whom are just terrorists. He is breaking his promises to the American people and you don't even care."

I do not agree with many of our middle east decisions, I do not agree with Regime change. But in this case I agree with protecting the Americans involved. As far as your "rebel" groups, most of whom are just terrorists." Every Freedom fighter in the world is a terrorist to the other side.

Believe it or not we have many of the same thoughts and Ideas on the ME and our involvement from what I have seen you post. But no matter what my personal thoughts are I will always side with protecting the guys on the ground that are doing what they are told where they are told to do it.

Ethereal
06-22-2017, 03:09 PM
Look, to start with I was agreeing with your doubting the Gov't, like I said with good reason. In this case however while the gov't line is not 100% the basis is correct, Americans were at risk. My job is as an Operations Specialist (contractor) with the Army, more than that is not available.

As far as
"US involvement in Syria is moronic, schizophrenic, and illegal. Trump promised not to pursue "regime change" policies in Syria and he also promised to stop supporting these amorphous "rebel" groups, most of whom are just terrorists. He is breaking his promises to the American people and you don't even care."

I do not agree with many of our middle east decisions, I do not agree with Regime change. But in this case I agree with protecting the Americans involved. As far as your "rebel" groups, most of whom are just terrorists." Every Freedom fighter in the world is a terrorist to the other side.

Believe it or not we have many of the same thoughts and Ideas on the ME and our involvement from what I have seen you post. But no matter what my personal thoughts are I will always side with protecting the guys on the ground that are doing what they are told where they are told to do it.
Until you produce actual proof that US military personnel were at risk, there is no reason for anyone to believe they were. The Syrian government knows better than to conduct military operations in close proximity to western forces, especially Americans. It defies logic that they would have done something so reckless and counter to their own interests. The more likely explanation is that the unelected deep state within the CIA and the Pentagon are taking matters into their own hands, like they always do, and trying to create pretexts for expanded intervention in Syria. The primary goal has always been "regime change", not fighting terrorism. The US government's actions in the Middle East have done far more to spread terrorism than to combat it. And that is largely intentional, not accidental.

Cannons Front
06-23-2017, 05:59 AM
Until you produce actual proof that US military personnel were at risk, there is no reason for anyone to believe they were. The Syrian government knows better than to conduct military operations in close proximity to western forces, especially Americans. It defies logic that they would have done something so reckless and counter to their own interests. The more likely explanation is that the unelected deep state within the CIA and the Pentagon are taking matters into their own hands, like they always do, and trying to create pretexts for expanded intervention in Syria. The primary goal has always been "regime change", not fighting terrorism. The US government's actions in the Middle East have done far more to spread terrorism than to combat it. And that is largely intentional, not accidental.
Believe what you want dude, I am not losing any sleep. Keep your tin foil hat on tight.......

donttread
06-23-2017, 07:34 AM
Until you produce actual proof that US military personnel were at risk, there is no reason for anyone to believe they were. The Syrian government knows better than to conduct military operations in close proximity to western forces, especially Americans. It defies logic that they would have done something so reckless and counter to their own interests. The more likely explanation is that the unelected deep state within the CIA and the Pentagon are taking matters into their own hands, like they always do, and trying to create pretexts for expanded intervention in Syria. The primary goal has always been "regime change", not fighting terrorism. The US government's actions in the Middle East have done far more to spread terrorism than to combat it. And that is largely intentional, not accidental.

Yup. And for instability to continue Assad must fall.

Ethereal
06-23-2017, 10:40 AM
Believe what you want dude, I am not losing any sleep. Keep your tin foil hat on tight.......

If thinking for myself means I'm wearing a tin foil hat, then I wear it proudly.

Ethereal
06-23-2017, 10:54 AM
How America Armed Terrorists in Syria (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/)

Another Middle East debacle

By GARETH PORTER • June 22, 2017

Three-term Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a member of both the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, has proposed legislation that would prohibit any U.S. assistance to terrorist organizations in Syria as well as to any organization working directly with them. Equally important, it would prohibit U.S. military sales and other forms of military cooperation with other countries that provide arms or financing to those terrorists and their collaborators.

Gabbard’s “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” challenges for the first time in Congress a U.S. policy toward the conflict in the Syrian civil war that should have set off alarm bells long ago: in 2012-13 the Obama administration helped its Sunni allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar provide arms to Syrian and non-Syrian armed groups to force President Bashar al-Assad out of power. And in 2013 the administration began to provide arms to what the CIA judged to be “relatively moderate” anti-Assad groups—meaning they incorporated various degrees of Islamic extremism.

That policy, ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative, has actually helped build up al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise al Nusra Front into the dominant threat to Assad.

The supporters of this arms-supply policy believe it is necessary as pushback against Iranian influence in Syria. But that argument skirts the real issue raised by the policy’s history. The Obama administration’s Syria policy effectively sold out the U.S. interest that was supposed to be the touchstone of the “Global War on Terrorism”—the eradication of al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates. The United States has instead subordinated that U.S. interest in counter-terrorism to the interests of its Sunni allies. In doing so it has helped create a new terrorist threat in the heart of the Middle East.

[...]


David Petraeus' bright idea: give terrorists weapons to beat terrorists (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/david-petraeus-bright-idea-give-terrorists-weapons-to-beat-isis)

Trevor Timm

Former CIA director David Petraeus is advocating giving arms to members of al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaida off-shoot, to beat Isis. That is madness

The latest brilliant plan to curtail Isis in the Middle East? Give more weapons to current members of al-Qaida. The Daily Beast reported that former CIA director David Petraeus, still somehow entrenched in the DC Beltway power circles despite leaking highly classified secrets, is now advocating arming members of the al-Nusra Front in Syria, an offshoot of al-Qaida and a designated terrorist organization. Could there be a more dangerous and crazy idea?

Petraeus was forced to respond on Tuesday, the day after his article provoked a firestorm, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper that he doesn’t want to arm al-Nusra itself, just “some individual fighters, and perhaps some elements, within Nusra”. He thinks the US could somehow “peel off” these fighters and convince to join the much weaker rebel army that al-Nusra recently decimated. Oh okay, then. He’s in favor of arming only the “moderate” members of al-Qaida: that sounds so much better.

Let’s put aside for a second that there’s not much difference between arming al-Nusra and arming “some individual fighters, and perhaps some elements, within Nusra.” How the US can possibly “peel off” fighters from a terrorist group is a complete mystery. In Iraq – Petraeus is apparently using part of the largely failed Iraq “surge” as his blueprint here – he convinced some Sunni tribes to switch sides temporarily, but that was with over 100,000 US troops on the ground to do the convincing. Does Petraeus think we should invade Syria to accomplish the same feat?

The idea that we should add more weapons to the equation, let alone give them to militants who the US considers terrorists, is preposterous at this point. Depressingly, escalating our involvement is the dominant talking point in Washington’s foreign policy circles these days.

[...]

That's who the CIA is "supporting" in Syria - AQ. Your tax dollars at work.

donttread
06-23-2017, 01:32 PM
If thinking for myself means I'm wearing a tin foil hat, then I wear it proudly.


What happened to your "herd gene"?

donttread
06-23-2017, 01:51 PM
That's who the CIA is "supporting" in Syria - AQ. Your tax dollars at work.


Plus Libia and Iraq at one point?

pjohns
06-24-2017, 05:21 PM
Former Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, had it exactly correct today, I believe.

He noted that we really do not desire a war with Russia.

Yet we should make it clear to the Russians that we will fly our aircraft wherever we want, and whenever we want.

And truly mean it.

Peter1469
06-24-2017, 05:33 PM
Former Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, had it exactly correct today, I believe.

He noted that we really do not desire a war with Russia.

Yet we should make it clear to the Russians that we will fly our aircraft wherever we want, and whenever we want.

And truly mean it.

Bolton is a neocon, but in this instance he is correct.