The Syria crisis

[looney]

Turkey is a member of NATO who we are obliged to defend, like Belgium in previous wars. So Ifit kicks of with Russia QED WW3.
£

 

[beorhthelm]

The west and Qatar/Saudi want to build an oil pipeline through Syria in order to reduce the need for Iranian oil that we currently rely on. Qatar are paying for the rebels to continue the war to get rid of Assad as he is pro Russia/Iran so won't let the oil through. And that's what this utter disgrace of a conflict really boils down to.

an audacious project, rather overlooking all the other routes sans Syria that could be used, oil to China, and presence of tight oil. not to say no one has such plans, but they are unrealistic. this also ignores the origin of the conflict in Syria, with locals rising against Assad's rule, and him putting that down in charateristic violence. no doubt you believe this was all orchestrated for the oil industry. they seem to orchestrate alot over history, yet cant sort out a stable price lately. and since when do we rely on embargo'd Iranian oil?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Assad is more justified in defending his people than Bush and Blair’s illegal war in Iraq that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths that led to the rise of Daesh.

If Assad is a war criminal he would be down in the queue behind Bush and Blair. Our own government has acted worse than he has done.

I’ve given you a Wikileaks doc, Wesley Clark’s comments, what happened in the so called peaceful demonstration, and UN statements with regard to who was really using chemical weapons.

You know that the war was instigated with outside interference from Saudi, Turkey and that the US and Britain were vocal in their support for a violent uprising and selling arms to the Sunni States to supply the foreign rebel fighters.

Logic says that it is not just Assad to blame.

It is possible to understand an opposing side of an argument without agreeing with it, but you are not willing to understand it.

If you want to discuss what is going on in Syria that is fine but I’m not going to argue with you because we have been down this road before.

You can't be that naive to think Assad has any interest in defending 'the people' . His only concern is retaining his grip on power.

At least you seem to be admitting that Assad carries some of the blame which is something I suppose.

I still think there is some underlying reason as to why you seem so supportive of Assad but if you don't want to divulge this reason then as you say no point in debating any longer.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

I understand Assad's position and you are anti Assad because of all the propaganda you listen to.

You do realise that the chemical attacks were nothing to do with Assad.

UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...es-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html

Mustard gas used in Syria fighting: UN watchdog

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/mustard-gas-syria-fighting-watchdog-151105232221500.html

You know that in that peaceful protest 7 police died and the Baath Party Headquarters and courthouse were torched.

http://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/sy...ian-intervention-by-prof-michel-chossudovsky/

Wikileaks CIA document from 2006 discussing ways to weaken the Syrian government.

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html

And Wesley Clark stating that the US wanted a war in Syria to bring about regime change.

https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw

But don't let the truth get in the way.

People are uneducated. In my experience my most educated and hard working friends are the most liberal because they spend a hell of a lot of time reading sources online and coming to their own decisions. Many people think an hour of bbc news a day educated them, they are wrong. The upcoming generations will be more liberal as we use the internet to truly educate ourselves to the facts and the reality of what is happening. One reason a free and uncensored internet is vital.

 

[symyjym]

You can't be that naive to think Assad has any interest in defending 'the people' . His only concern is retaining his grip on power.

At least you seem to be admitting that Assad carries some of the blame which is something I suppose.

I still think there is some underlying reason as to why you seem so supportive of Assad but if you don't want to divulge this reason then as you say no point in debating any longer.

I support Assad because he is secular and was pro transition to democracy. I did not agree with supporting a violent uprising which the US, Britain and other western countries endorsed and promoted.

To defeat Daesh Syria needs Assad's army, the Kurds, the Iraq army, Iran and Hezbollah. The rebel forces are in the way and they include extreme Islamic groups who share the same ideology as Daesh and Al Qaeda.

After being taken to the Iraq war based on lies I am cynical of everything we are told and as the links I provided earlier prove, not everything is black and white.

 

[symyjym]

People are uneducated. In my experience my most educated and hard working friends are the most liberal because they spend a hell of a lot of time reading sources online and coming to their own decisions. Many people think an hour of bbc news a day educated them, they are wrong. The upcoming generations will be more liberal as we use the internet to truly educate ourselves to the facts and the reality of what is happening. One reason a free and uncensored internet is vital.

Yep catching the news and just hearing soundbytes doesn't give you the whole picture.

If you hear brutal dictator, peaceful protest, slaughtering, chemical attacks etc it just programs people into a false understanding.

Even though the chemical attacks were proven to not be Assad, people still repeat it as if it were true. I listened to a pro rebel Syrian on Al Jazeera today and he used the chemical attack lie.

Assad isn't starving people but he is stopping the supply of weapons being smuggled in. All the rebel fighters are well fed and keep the food to themselves.

 

[Half Time Pies]

People are uneducated. In my experience my most educated and hard working friends are the most liberal because they spend a hell of a lot of time reading sources online and coming to their own decisions. Many people think an hour of bbc news a day educated them, they are wrong. The upcoming generations will be more liberal as we use the internet to truly educate ourselves to the facts and the reality of what is happening. One reason a free and uncensored internet is vital.

The other problem however is that people think that they can get to the truth by watching a load of youtube videos. It is very easy to come up with a video using snippets of footage which makes a compelling case for the 9-11 attacks being instigated by the US government for example.

In this world of information overload It is actually very difficult to get to the truth without access to some primary evidence.

 

[Half Time Pies]

Assad is more justified in defending his people than Bush and Blair’s illegal war in Iraq that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths that led to the rise of Daesh.

If Assad is a war criminal he would be down in the queue behind Bush and Blair. Our own government has acted worse than he has done.

I’ve given you a Wikileaks doc, Wesley Clark’s comments, what happened in the so called peaceful demonstration, and UN statements with regard to who was really using chemical weapons.

You know that the war was instigated with outside interference from Saudi, Turkey and that the US and Britain were vocal in their support for a violent uprising and selling arms to the Sunni States to supply the foreign rebel fighters.

Logic says that it is not just Assad to blame.

It is possible to understand an opposing side of an argument without agreeing with it, but you are not willing to understand it.

If you want to discuss what is going on in Syria that is fine but I’m not going to argue with you because we have been down this road before.

The truth is that in the world of international power politics very few actors are squeaky clean, its easy to criticise or take sides however due to the anarchical nature of the international system it is actually perfectly rational for states and their leaders to try to protect their interests and security by military force or by the threat of it.

 

[Mutts Nuts]

Russia warning of WW III, Turkey threatening to dump 3 million refugees into neighbouring European countries

 

[symyjym]

The other problem however is that people think that they can get to the truth by watching a load of youtube videos. It is very easy to come up with a video using snippets of footage which makes a compelling case for the 9-11 attacks being instigated by the US government for example.

In this world of information overload It is actually very difficult to get to the truth without access to some primary evidence.

I agree. You have to be careful of youtube videos making wild claims. People make good money from conspiracy theories. If people believe in Aliens then there is a market in writing books and being invited to talk about Aliens.

What conspiracy theorist do is mention some truths to win over confidence from the viewer and then they throw their tin foil hat conspiracy theories around it. Ken O'Keefe does this a lot. One minute he is making sense and the next it’s all about false flags, bankers, CIA and Mossad being behind ISIS, a plan for a Greater Israel etc, whilst working up into a psychotic rage.

The media I follow is:
Al Jazeera (which is Sunni Sunni Gulf State owned)
The BBC (which just quotes our government’s view)
RT (which is State owned)
Channel 4 (with Jon Snow is more rounded)
Wikileaks document are helpful too.

Then with all this info you have to work out which report and interviewee makes sense, who is lying through their teeth, or is just deluded and stubborn in their bias agenda.

Everything we are ever told in life is just an opinion and we have to decipher it all and form our own opinion. What is clear is that people can be brainwashed by mainstream media and they can be brainwashed by conspiracy theories.

With regard the the war in Syria, I have always believed that the US and British governments were wrong to endorse a violent uprising in Syria and telling Assad to leave. Democracies take time to build and encouragng war is not a quick fix path to democracy. It is in fact a contradiction and sets a bad example.

 

[carlzeiss]

Surprised to see the build up to WW3 consigned to the NSC archive

https://www.rt.com/news/332380-turkey-shells-northern-syria/

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Surprised to see the build up to WW3 consigned to the NSC archive

https://www.rt.com/news/332380-turkey-shells-northern-syria/

RT (Russia Today) is Putin's state propaganda machine, best ignore pretty much every word.

 

[symyjym]

RT (Russia Today) is Putin's state propaganda machine, best ignore pretty much every word.

Al Jazeera has reported that Turkey have been shelling the Kurds on their news channel today.

Every time an RT link gets posted you say ignore it. You are clearly anti Russia and have your own agenda.

 

[symyjym]

Surprised to see the build up to WW3 consigned to the NSC archive

https://www.rt.com/news/332380-turkey-shells-northern-syria/

Turkey aren't winning any friends for attacking the Kurds. The US has told them to stop.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

RT (Russia Today) is Putin's state propaganda machine, best ignore pretty much every word.

In the same way CNN/BBC are very pro-west and anti Russia. Read everything and you can probably piece together what's factual and what isn't.

I agree. You have to be careful of youtube videos making wild claims. People make good money from conspiracy theories. If people believe in Aliens then there is a market in writing books and being invited to talk about Aliens.

What conspiracy theorist do is mention some truths to win over confidence from the viewer and then they throw their tin foil hat conspiracy theories around it. Ken O'Keefe does this a lot. One minute he is making sense and the next it’s all about false flags, bankers, CIA and Mossad being behind ISIS, a plan for a Greater Israel etc, whilst working up into a psychotic rage.

The media I follow is:
Al Jazeera (which is Sunni Sunni Gulf State owned)
The BBC (which just quotes our government’s view)
RT (which is State owned)
Channel 4 (with Jon Snow is more rounded)
Wikileaks document are helpful too.

Then with all this info you have to work out which report and interviewee makes sense, who is lying through their teeth, or is just deluded and stubborn in their bias agenda.

Everything we are ever told in life is just an opinion and we have to decipher it all and form our own opinion. What is clear is that people can be brainwashed by mainstream media and they can be brainwashed by conspiracy theories.

With regard the the war in Syria, I have always believed that the US and British governments were wrong to endorse a violent uprising in Syria and telling Assad to leave. Democracies take time to build and encouragng war is not a quick fix path to democracy. It is in fact a contradiction and sets a bad example.

This is what I wanted to say but a lot more detailed.

 

[Half Time Pies]

I agree. You have to be careful of youtube videos making wild claims. People make good money from conspiracy theories. If people believe in Aliens then there is a market in writing books and being invited to talk about Aliens.

What conspiracy theorist do is mention some truths to win over confidence from the viewer and then they throw their tin foil hat conspiracy theories around it. Ken O'Keefe does this a lot. One minute he is making sense and the next it’s all about false flags, bankers, CIA and Mossad being behind ISIS, a plan for a Greater Israel etc, whilst working up into a psychotic rage.

The media I follow is:
Al Jazeera (which is Sunni Sunni Gulf State owned)
The BBC (which just quotes our government’s view)
RT (which is State owned)
Channel 4 (with Jon Snow is more rounded)
Wikileaks document are helpful too.

Then with all this info you have to work out which report and interviewee makes sense, who is lying through their teeth, or is just deluded and stubborn in their bias agenda.

Everything we are ever told in life is just an opinion and we have to decipher it all and form our own opinion. What is clear is that people can be brainwashed by mainstream media and they can be brainwashed by conspiracy theories.

With regard the the war in Syria, I have always believed that the US and British governments were wrong to endorse a violent uprising in Syria and telling Assad to leave. Democracies take time to build and encouragng war is not a quick fix path to democracy. It is in fact a contradiction and sets a bad example.

Wow good luck reading all of that propaganda and making sense of it! Although you think you can be impartial confirmation bias always comes in to play, for example you stated that you have always believed that the US and British governments were wrong to endorse a violent uprising, well if thats the case you will then likely actively seek out and add more weight to evidence that confirms this view even if its subconscious. I don't know but that belief could also be based on some ideological viewpoint which will make it even more difficult for you to stray from the original viewpoint even if faced by overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This is my personal experience having studied politics and International relations to Masters degree level I ended up spending a lot of time driving myself crazy trying to make sense of International Power politics and arguing who is to blame. The fact is there is not enough impartial primary information out there to take a position and even if there was as a keyboard warrior there was very little I could do about it. I then went back to some of the theories of why states in the international system behave the way that they do and now take the view that the natural state of the international system is competitive and prone to conflict regardless of the ethics or values of the individual players. The mistake people make is that by paying attention to the individual state, and to ideological, moral and economic issues you miss the fact that there is an overall structural problem with the International system that forces states to behave in this way.

If you haven't done already I think its good to have a look at some of the theoretical approaches to international politics and then it might be easier to see individual conflicts in their wider context.

My personal favourite is International Realism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/

 

[Mutts Nuts]

Turkey is a member of NATO who we are obliged to defend, like Belgium in previous wars. So Ifit kicks of with Russia QED WW3.
£

The sooner Turkey are kicked out of NATO the better, they are determined to drive a wedge between Russia and the west

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Al Jazeera has reported that Turkey have been shelling the Kurds on their news channel today.

Every time an RT link gets posted you say ignore it. You are clearly anti Russia and have your own agenda.

My agenda is anti-Putin, not anti-Russia - Please do not confuse the two.

He is a mafia kleptocrat stealing from the Russian people, and killing anyone who stands in his way.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Wow good luck reading all of that propaganda and making sense of it! Although you think you can be impartial confirmation bias always comes in to play, for example you stated that you have always believed that the US and British governments were wrong to endorse a violent uprising, well if thats the case you will then likely actively seek out and add more weight to evidence that confirms this view even if its subconscious. I don't know but that belief could also be based on some ideological viewpoint which will make it even more difficult for you to stray from the original viewpoint even if faced by overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This is my personal experience having studied politics and International relations to Masters degree level I ended up spending a lot of time driving myself crazy trying to make sense of International Power politics and arguing who is to blame. The fact is there is not enough impartial primary information out there to take a position and even if there was as a keyboard warrior there was very little I could do about it. I then went back to some of the theories of why states in the international system behave the way that they do and now take the view that the natural state of the international system is competitive and prone to conflict regardless of the ethics or values of the individual players. The mistake people make is that by paying attention to the individual state, and to ideological, moral and economic issues you miss the fact that there is an overall structural problem with the International system that forces states to behave in this way.

If you haven't done already I think its good to have a look at some of the theoretical approaches to international politics and then it might be easier to see individual conflicts in their wider context.

My personal favourite is International Realism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/

Good post. Agree with most of your comments especially the highlighted section. How many of us search for sources/ evidence /links that argue against or completely undermine our preconceptions/viewpoint! The most unlikely thing you will ever see written on a forum or hear in real life ..I am persuaded by your arguments , I AM WRONG, I have changed my mind.

I only managed a Critical Thinking A level but even that gave me severe headaches working out the numerous factors that come in to play when assessing evidence and arguments. The many blatant flaws in the arguments used in most posts (including my own) render these discussions virtually meaningless in most cases but are entertaining none the less.

We all have our agendas and bias so probably best not to take ourselves too seriously or suggest we have a better understanding of a subject like Syria especially when as you pointed out the bias is there for all to see.

 

[symyjym]

Wow good luck reading all of that propaganda and making sense of it! Although you think you can be impartial confirmation bias always comes in to play, for example you stated that you have always believed that the US and British governments were wrong to endorse a violent uprising, well if thats the case you will then likely actively seek out and add more weight to evidence that confirms this view even if its subconscious. I don't know but that belief could also be based on some ideological viewpoint which will make it even more difficult for you to stray from the original viewpoint even if faced by overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This is my personal experience having studied politics and International relations to Masters degree level I ended up spending a lot of time driving myself crazy trying to make sense of International Power politics and arguing who is to blame. The fact is there is not enough impartial primary information out there to take a position and even if there was as a keyboard warrior there was very little I could do about it. I then went back to some of the theories of why states in the international system behave the way that they do and now take the view that the natural state of the international system is competitive and prone to conflict regardless of the ethics or values of the individual players. The mistake people make is that by paying attention to the individual state, and to ideological, moral and economic issues you miss the fact that there is an overall structural problem with the International system that forces states to behave in this way.

If you haven't done already I think its good to have a look at some of the theoretical approaches to international politics and then it might be easier to see individual conflicts in their wider context.

My personal favourite is International Realism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/

When I have time I will have a look at that link.

I would say at this time, it is not too difficult to make some sense of what is going on.

A key element and common factor in this is the Sunni Wahhanism ideology.

9/11, 7/7, Suicide bombings against the Shia in Iraq on a daily basis during the occupation, Charlie Hebdo, Lee Rigby, Tunisia, Paris and Russian plane attacks etc is all carried out and motivated by this ideology. These are real events not propaganda.

The Shia’s and Iranians do not go on suicide missions or strap bombs to people and children.

The first thing we have to do in the debate is to agree or disagree with the above statement.