What's really happening in Syria
- Thread starter schmuckley
- Start date
- Status
SOFTengCOMPelec
Platinum Member
- May 9, 2013
- 2,417
- 75
- 91
I've only had a VERY quick skim through. The problem is that there is no real collaboration of a person speaking into a webcam, it could easily be mis-information, generated from a number of interested parties, who want to back whatever, and create mis-information.
Or it could be true, but we DON'T KNOW (with a few rare exceptions).
It is best to take information from reliable sources, which have been confirmed.
Even then, it could be war propaganda.
Or it could be true, but we DON'T KNOW (with a few rare exceptions).
It is best to take information from reliable sources, which have been confirmed.
Even then, it could be war propaganda.
Last edited:
Last edited:
SOFTengCOMPelec
Platinum Member
- May 9, 2013
- 2,417
- 75
- 91
If I said there was a website that 100% definitely said Intel, tomorrow are launching a new 32 core, better than Skylake, 25GHz, chip/cpu which works in all 1150/1155/775 sockets, uses less than 1 watt and costs less than $5, to the end consumer.
I would need MORE proof than *****LIVELeaks******, or ******IRANNEWS****** etc etc.
Sorry, but I am VERY sceptical about "WAR" news, especially if it comes from a leak site or the country at war (Syria).
It could still be true though ...
EDIT: Anyway, I've given you my "OPINION" on what to me are untrustworthy news sources, but please feel free to reach your own conclusions.
The site that you linked to (Syria) has stories such as "killing of osama bin laden big lie"
Maybe that story is true (Bin laden NOT killed by Obamas actions), but I would need a TON of solid proof before believing it, from that news source, SORRY!
Last edited:
SOFTengCOMPelec
Platinum Member
- May 9, 2013
- 2,417
- 75
- 91
basically the reason the west hasn't intervened yet in Syria isn't because of Russia.
it is because despite the severe humanitarian crisis and despite how sad it is, all western leaders understand that (whatever they may say to the media) the best thing is if Assad remains in power.
If he is forced out, who or rather what will replace him? Al Quada? Some other jihad terrorist organization? It isn't like Libya has been stable since the west helped topple the previous regime.
It is cold and brutal and i wouldn't wish this on anyone, but the leaders of the west don't give a damn about Syria. all they care about is "peace and quiet". In 1982, a similar uprising happened in Syria. Bashar Al-Assads father (who was in power at the time) killed around 10,000 people. The people understood the rules and there was "quiet" again.
The total death toll so far has been estimated at more then 136,000 since 2011 (and a lot of it are civilians). The total death toll in the Israeli-Arab conflict (since 1948) is around 24,000.
And people focus less on Syria, because it causes less trouble and is less interesting.
The USA is also afraid of what happened in Afghanistan with the Taliban. It is very difficult to know who these "rebels" are. If you give them weapons, can they be trusted? Will they become your enemy tomorrow?
Basically, the West would rather watch then intervene because the situation is extremely complex. Syria isn't a nationalist state. Its borders were drawn up by the French. A minority rules and it could easily fragment and split up. Similar to situations you have in Africa with tribes.
it is because despite the severe humanitarian crisis and despite how sad it is, all western leaders understand that (whatever they may say to the media) the best thing is if Assad remains in power.
If he is forced out, who or rather what will replace him? Al Quada? Some other jihad terrorist organization? It isn't like Libya has been stable since the west helped topple the previous regime.
It is cold and brutal and i wouldn't wish this on anyone, but the leaders of the west don't give a damn about Syria. all they care about is "peace and quiet". In 1982, a similar uprising happened in Syria. Bashar Al-Assads father (who was in power at the time) killed around 10,000 people. The people understood the rules and there was "quiet" again.
The total death toll so far has been estimated at more then 136,000 since 2011 (and a lot of it are civilians). The total death toll in the Israeli-Arab conflict (since 1948) is around 24,000.
And people focus less on Syria, because it causes less trouble and is less interesting.
The USA is also afraid of what happened in Afghanistan with the Taliban. It is very difficult to know who these "rebels" are. If you give them weapons, can they be trusted? Will they become your enemy tomorrow?
Basically, the West would rather watch then intervene because the situation is extremely complex. Syria isn't a nationalist state. Its borders were drawn up by the French. A minority rules and it could easily fragment and split up. Similar to situations you have in Africa with tribes.
We are shipping weapons to Syria to the "moderate" rebels. I think the reason why we havent got involved more is because the backlash against it by the public in the United States last June kept our Administration at bay. If we were indifferent about it. I would expect limited airstrikes would have happened by now.
So..I'm guessing some missed the part where the US is funding the rebels/Muslim radicals? Half a billion dollars? This can be confirmed.
SOFTengCOMPelec
Platinum Member
- May 9, 2013
- 2,417
- 75
- 91
If there is a great big fire, it is surely better to pour water on it (hopefully extinguishing it), rather than pouring Petrol/Gasoline/Explosives/RPGs/Weapons onto the fire (or Civil War), which will probably make the fire (War) worse.
I.e. If Russia supply one side with Weapons, and some of the West provide the other side with Weapons, we are just creating a great big bonfire (War).
Also who exactly are they funding, some sources say they are past/present/future terrorists, such as AL Qaeda and similar.
Newell Steamer
Diamond Member
- Jan 27, 2014
- 6,894
- 8
- 0
Obama can't quit on Syria.
1st he "officially" sends 'secret' help to Syria in the summer of 2012; http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120801
This is just stupid.
Since you've in effect announced you've declared war on Syria. I am surprised our enemies did not find and bring claims of warcrimes and UN violations up as a result of this.
Then, a year later, Obama tries to get Congress to launch a militarty assault on Syria. That died thank God. And, fortunately, Obama didn't just charge in (re: Bush).
And, I am certain that 'secret' help is still being given to Syrian "rebels".
Now, the truth; Iraq hid their WMDs in Syria: http://www.wnd.com/2003/06/19430/
Bush and his intelligence was right, there were WMDs in Iraq. What they were wrong in, however, was underestimating just how well the middle east works with one another, once the US shows up.
The US invades or is about to invade Iraq - and Iraq's WMD are shoved off into Syria.
We waste hundres of billions of dollars. And, the biggest shame, is that thousands of casualties on our force's side and hundreds of thousands of casuatlies on the Iraqi civilian side.
We limp out exhausted,.. and no WMDs. But, evidence they do exist and are moved into Syria.
Barry comes along, and has been itching to locate the WMDs in Syria (to best Bush I guess...). So, he OKs plans to upsur the Syrian government. One issue; he and his crew target goat herders and malcontents,... not trained military people.
Assad and his butchers chop up these idiots. And, in turn, said idiots start murdering civilans trying to make it look like Assad is killing his own people.
It's just a huge mess.
But, thankfully, we aren't in Syria in full force.
We are certainly there (to get back at Syria sheltering Iraq's WMDs), but, it's too late with the wrong effort. These efforts of uspuring a regime should have been applied back when we had our sights on Iraq - not aferwards, chasing WMDs. That was our biggest flaw, thinking Iraq would be on their own and no one would look out for them.
1st he "officially" sends 'secret' help to Syria in the summer of 2012; http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120801
This is just stupid.
Since you've in effect announced you've declared war on Syria. I am surprised our enemies did not find and bring claims of warcrimes and UN violations up as a result of this.
Then, a year later, Obama tries to get Congress to launch a militarty assault on Syria. That died thank God. And, fortunately, Obama didn't just charge in (re: Bush).
And, I am certain that 'secret' help is still being given to Syrian "rebels".
Now, the truth; Iraq hid their WMDs in Syria: http://www.wnd.com/2003/06/19430/
Bush and his intelligence was right, there were WMDs in Iraq. What they were wrong in, however, was underestimating just how well the middle east works with one another, once the US shows up.
The US invades or is about to invade Iraq - and Iraq's WMD are shoved off into Syria.
We waste hundres of billions of dollars. And, the biggest shame, is that thousands of casualties on our force's side and hundreds of thousands of casuatlies on the Iraqi civilian side.
We limp out exhausted,.. and no WMDs. But, evidence they do exist and are moved into Syria.
Barry comes along, and has been itching to locate the WMDs in Syria (to best Bush I guess...). So, he OKs plans to upsur the Syrian government. One issue; he and his crew target goat herders and malcontents,... not trained military people.
Assad and his butchers chop up these idiots. And, in turn, said idiots start murdering civilans trying to make it look like Assad is killing his own people.
It's just a huge mess.
But, thankfully, we aren't in Syria in full force.
We are certainly there (to get back at Syria sheltering Iraq's WMDs), but, it's too late with the wrong effort. These efforts of uspuring a regime should have been applied back when we had our sights on Iraq - not aferwards, chasing WMDs. That was our biggest flaw, thinking Iraq would be on their own and no one would look out for them.
Last edited:
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter