Syrian Internal Conflict
- Thread starter lucinator
- Start date
Only if the regime survives long enough to take possession. Delivery is probably a year or more away if it is still in testing. Besides, 1 or 2 aircraft won’t make much difference. :hul
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Those Syrian State TV cameras were quick to the bomb blast sites. A little too quick if you ask me....
Yes. A total of 24 MiG-29M2. They're also currently repairing and possibly modernizing the existing Syrian stock of MiG-29s.
with the situation changing rapidly, it is becoming for and more likely that there will be some sort of armed conflict between the world and Syria. Since we know roughly how a no flyzone/ help the rebels battle plan would go(true there would be alot different on the details end but ti would at it's heart be similar) how would the UN implement peacekeepers, or a aid corridor? (this is assuming Russia and China eventually get on board which is still unlikely)
There's still a lot of uncertainties as to how things will develop. For once it would seem that the Arab League can actually agree on something [a miracle!], they will probably be the ones who will put boots on the ground as they have spoken about the need for a ''peacekeeping'' force. Given the messy situation and the potential for things to get worse politically and on the ground, I doubt if any Western country would want to commit to having a ground presence there. Any ''intervention' will have to come via the Turkish border.
Last edited:
the concerned
Active Member
the reason i think we should help in syria is that it will encourage other civilians in other countries to stand up to repressive regimes and that is something Iran/China and Russia want to avoid
Here are a few interesting photos of the Syrian forces engaged in the fighting.
Ð”ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐœÐ¾ÐºÑ€ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½ - ÐрабÑÐºÐ°Ñ Ð¼Ð¾Ð´ÐµÑ€Ð½Ð¸Ð·Ð°Ñ†Ð¸Ñ Ð‘ÐœÐŸ-1
ПравительÑтвенные войÑка Сирии штурмуют город Даръа
It seems that the conflict is becoming protracted. I wonder what will happen if Syria doesn't manage to completely shut down the rebellion, despite a lack of international involvement...
Ð”ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐœÐ¾ÐºÑ€ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½ - ÐрабÑÐºÐ°Ñ Ð¼Ð¾Ð´ÐµÑ€Ð½Ð¸Ð·Ð°Ñ†Ð¸Ñ Ð‘ÐœÐŸ-1
ПравительÑтвенные войÑка Сирии штурмуют город Даръа
It seems that the conflict is becoming protracted. I wonder what will happen if Syria doesn't manage to completely shut down the rebellion, despite a lack of international involvement...
Well, if Russia and China don't get "on board" then there won't be any peacekeepers or no-fly zone. And how is it becoming more likely that an armed conflict will occur between the "world" and Syria? And who is the world you are talking about? Russia, China, Japan, Indonesia, and India for starters are all part of the world and I can almost guarantee that none of those countries will send troops to Syria, or aid the rebels.
There are real problems with supporting rebels, any rebels, that are fighting a regime. In the first place you don't really know who they are. Al Qaeda has infiltrated the Syrian opposition and killed civilians so any overthrow of the Assad regime may aid al Qaeda. Secondly you don't really have command and control over the rebels. They can do whatever they want when they retain power: oppress other people (Christians, Jews, Turks, Shiites), build weapons of mass destruction, launch wars of "liberation" against their neighbors, etc.
There are a lot of problems with utilizing proxies or overthrowing established governments by external force.
It depends on what level of violence is retained in Syria. If there is a small cadre of Al Qaeda /defectors who utilize hit and run raids and bombings and are centered around Homs and Hama then I think the Syrian regime can hold on indefinitely. If the violence spreads of course then Assad has serious problems. But he has already weathered a year of this, and it is very difficult for purely internal conflicts to overthrow an established regime.
Qadafhi would not have been overthrown if it were not for foreign intervention and in the case of both Tunisia and Egypt the military overthrew the leader. In the case of Egypt, it wasn't strictly speaking an overthrow since the military still retains control, as it has since the 1950s.
What is more worrying is the Sunni/Shiite split occurring in the Arab world. Saudi Arabia assists Bahrain in cracking down on Shiites but insists that Shiite Assad stop his violence against Sunnis. I don't think these sectarian conflicts will end any time soon.
Well, that's the Middle East for you. Saudi is very worried that any trouble in neighbouring Bahrain could spill over across its borders. And they are more than happy if the ''heretic'' Alawites are weakened in Syria as this in turn would effect Iran and Hezbollah.
And if I may add - it is also something the West for several decades wanted to avoid as repressive Western friendly regimes kept things stable, kept the ''Islamists'' at bay, kept the oil flowing and didn't threaten Israel. During theCold War, these regimes also played a part in limiting Soviet influence in the region. Like the rest of the world, the Arab Spring came as a big shock to the West and they took time to readjust to the new political realities of the region. Remember what happened when the ''Islamists'' wont the elections in Algeria - the Alferian government with Western backing stayed in power. Does the West, like you indicated, want to encourage the overthrow or more regimes like Saudi or Bahrain, who are very close allies? Certainly not as this would complicate things a lot.
I'm against the use of force against civilians but bear in mind that the ''official'' reason why China and Russia did not go along with the UN resolution was because they felt that the Syrian opposition should also be condemned for the use of force. And judging by the news reports that have come out, the Syrian regime isn't the only part to have blood on its hands, though it bears responsibility for what has happened -
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...me-bad-guys-among-the-rebels-too-6719999.html
It's seems there is some truth to Syria's claims that foreign help is pouring in the country -
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...hters-and-arms-pour-into-country-7216665.html
Last edited:
I think your looking to far into things, one Al Qaeda is a brand name now and just about any Islamic fundamentalist group that wants money uses the name. Also there is no evidence that the rebels would be worse than Assad against minorities that's jumping to conclusions, and is probably a bit insulting to assume that every group of Arabs that revolt must be just like the Taliban. Also it regards to WMD's Syria has chemical weapons and most likely biological weapons, and is trying to get nuclear weapons so how exactly would these rebels be any worse.
So it appears to be some truth in Assads claims that help is pouring in via neighbouring countries, in the form of Sunni volunteers and arms. And it would seem that Al Qaeda and the West share a common goal again [like they did in Iraq prior to 2003], they want Assad to go.
I had included this link in a previous post about foreign involvement.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...hters-and-arms-pour-into-country-7216665.html
Last edited:
Al Qaeda is more than a brand name, they follow a specific ideology and pledge loyalty to bin Ladin when he was alive and now Zawahiri. If it is true that every Islamic fundamentalist group uses the name how haven't Hamas, Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad used the name? Al Qaeda has branches: one is in Saudi Arabia, one is in Yemen, one in Libya, Somalia, and the most prolific one is in Iraq. It is the Iraqi branch that has moved on to Syria since they excel, and seem to revel in, the killing of Shiites.
Secondly, as to the rebels and why I have my doubts about them, we only have to look at recent history in Libya to see how this could play out. The Libyan rebels torture, murder, and are responsible for some ethnic cleansing of black Africans in their country. Qadafhi had his faults, like Assad, but some things he did not do.
The problem with Syria like with Libya is that it is tribal. Name for me the rebels: who are they specifically and what are their goals after Assad's removal? They are not a monolithic group, there are many radicals and groups who will vie for power after Assad falls. Shiites and Christains will not likely find a happy home in Syria if Assad is gone.
As for WMD Assad's weapons program was never as sophisticated as Saddam's. He doesn't likely have biological weapons, and if he doesn't use chemical weapons to save his own regime it probably means he is deterred from using them at all. Assad is the devil we know, the rebels may be the devil we don't know. The point being Assad seems to act in a rational manner, the rebels may or may not.
During the 1990's there were a number of reports that mentioned Syria having nuclear tipped Scuds. Not sure how accurate these reports were.
They are like street gang names. Hamas means ‘enthusiasm’, Hezbollah means ‘Party of God’, and Islamic Jihad is obvious. But you also have Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, Jemaah Islamiyah, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, and Abu Sayyaf, to name a few.
Muammar Gaddafi did all those things as well, and if a journalist was smart (and could get into Libya at all) he did not report them, at least if he ever wanted to see his family again.
And you are right about Syria, but that is hardly a reason to support the Assad regime. In the long run even those groups will be better off with democratic government, if they manage to get one.
Again, hardly a reason to support the Assad regime. The chemical weapons will be co-located with Syria’s long range missile arsenal (they have several thousand). The best move would be to support Turkey and the Arab League in securing them when Assad falls. Those weapons are more likely to be used by Muslim insurgents and terrorist against those governments than targets in the west.
Besides, the terrorists know, despite all their bluster, that any use of WMDs would just mobilize the world to destroy them.
And yet none of them named al-Qaeda. The point being that al Qaeda refers to a specific terrorist organization and all its branches and not just a name any joe schmoo terrorist can claim.
True except for ethnic cleansing, Qadafhi for whatever faults he had did not engage in ethnically cleansing blacks in Libya which is what happened once the rebels took over. But my point being you know what you are going to get with Qadafhi. In fact his regime's torture skills were so sought after that the US and UK used him to torture al Qaeda members.
Speaking of al Qaeda another thing Qadafhi wasn't was a fan of bin Ladin's or al Qaeda's, he was actually the first person to ask for an international arrest warrant for bin Ladin. Now it seems like al Qaeda has a prominent role in the new Libya.
The point being the rebels were not what the news media claimed them to be: peace-loving, democratic, and liberal. It turns out they were just as bad as Qadafhi (and you make this point yourself) if not worse.
But my point is the rebels are hardly democrats. There are many extermists, and tribal groups that will overshadow the relatively small number of democrats involved in the uprising. Syria could very well turn out like Libya: regional warlords divided along sectarian or tribal lines without a state appartus to support civil society.
With Assad you know the weapons are secure, without Assad you are not sure where the weapons will end up. This has to do with the rationality of state actors vs. non-state actors.
Well, we know that state actors act rationally but we are not certain that non-state actors (like terrorist organizations) will do so. If you are willing to blow yourself up in a car bomb to kill some Shiites why wouldn't you be willing to use WMDs? The threat of extermination doesn't work when you are hell-bent on suicide anyway. With regimes they have a more vested interest in survival so they do not usually act in a suicidal manner.
bit more to this than just "black ethnic cleansing"
the rebels were killing them as qadhafi had used them as a praetorian guard in the past and has also tried to rally the north african indig tribes to save him - he was regarded and often pitched by those tribes as the "king of nth africa"
they could have been purple and still been targetted.
qadhafi had done his own ethnic cleansing by gassing kurds and exterminating the "marsh" arabs
Nope, ethnic cleansing refers to the forecful removal of a popualce based on their ethnicity, race, or religion. An entire town in Libya, Tawragah was targeted, it was a home to mostly black migrant workers.
.
They were targeted after hostilites ceased. They were forcefully removed from their homes and put into camps. This is defined as ethnic cleansing. Whatever the reason is (only some were acutually used as mercs) it still does not justify ethnic cleansing. BBC News - 'Cleansed' Libyan town spills its terrible secrets
I don't think there are any Kurds or marshes in Libya. You are referring to Saddam Hussein, I think, which is another matter entriely.