Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

And next, Syria?

elbows said:
Anti-muslim views were far from new either - especially in the US. Glimpses of this can be found in some films and tv programs from decades prior - cliched 'middle eastern terrorists' who would be both mocked and hated, and who would be very loosely based on earlier 'famous acts of terrorism'. Even without 24/7 news the likes of the Beirut barracks bombing was something to be used and etched in the minds of the public. And the long Iran-Iraq war and the caricatures of Iran's leaders post-revolution. The outcry over fatwa's against Salman Rushdie.
Click to expand...

It was the Shi'tes I remember as being always on the news back in the Eighties - Iran and Lebanon.

Afghan Islamists were still the good guys then :D
 
elbows said:
To provide a simple supporting evidence for my refutation that stupendous levels of authoritarianism simply appeared post-9/11, note the year of this UK terrorism act, which was no walk in the park:

Terrorism Act 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that they simply appeared though or that this is the only reason why these laws are passed, am i? Tbh, i think all that stuff would still have happened, but the speed at which it happened, the economic uncertainty, etc, would have maybe taken longer to develop. They became far more politically acceptable with the justification of al qaeda though. And I take your point about the salman rushdie thing but my impression - which could be totally wrong - is the anti muslim stuff became much more focused whereas 'before' there was stuff like the serbs and the soviet union etc. the endless discussions about islam's links with terrorism in the media, and 'debates over islam' etc, that's come about at least partly as a result of what was percieved as the threat of terrorism and government's need to find a scapegoat over it.
 
PLO were secular. You'd never get a movie like that rambo one where he goes to fight with the taliban now would you? Anyway no worries, im aware those posts were not very articulate and my brain is a bit fried at the end of the week
 
frogwoman said:
PLO were secular. You'd never get a movie like that rambo one where he goes to fight with the taliban now would you? Anyway no worries, im aware those posts were not very articulate and my brain is a bit fried at the end of the week
Click to expand...
careful you don't slip up here and risk a roasting
 
There seems to be an Anti-Assad Druze uprising in Suwayda following the assassination of an anti-regime Druze cleric

Some analysis of the assassination and what it might mean here
 
pseudonarcissus said:
former archbishop of Canterbury calls for Jihad

“Rather, there must be renewed military...efforts to crush the twin menaces of Islamic State and al-Qaeda once and for all."
:facepalm:
Click to expand...
Church militant eh?
800px-The_church_militant%27_%28William_Markham%29_by_James_Gillray.jpg
 
They're going to use the current refugee crisis to justify boots on the ground I reckon. Definitely not immediately but soon.
 
Is that even possible though? Russia has a russian base in Syria and is pretty openly fighting on the side of Assad. None of the 'moderate' rebels will work with crushing Daesh as the primary goal because they want to get rid of assad first, division 30 have ever died, fled or defected and another american backed rebel just joined daesh. If americans/british troops go in it could become a bloodbath, they will be shot at by everyone.

If they go in to crush daesh it won't be long before they face pressure to get rid of assad. And if assad is gone wtf will happen to the army and the air force? For this reason i doubt it will end up happening - sounds nice on paper but the actual logistics of it?
 
The 'moderate' rebels are still in Damascus, still fighting for a peaceful Syrian settlement, still refusing the legitimacy of any & all foreign intervention, still arguing 'How does one speak of a revolution that is in need of NATO?' Aside from the YPG, I'm coming round to the idea that every other fucker with a gun & a fearsome name is working to another nation's agenda.

Edited to add - the quote is from here, interview with former NCC spokesperson Haytham Manna. It's three years old, and Manna is now with another internal opposition group (although he's based in Paris), but still worth a read. And Manna continues to be one of the only sources reporting from within the peace process.


frogwoman said:
Is that even possible though? Russia has a russian base in Syria and is pretty openly fighting on the side of Assad. None of the 'moderate' rebels will work with crushing Daesh as the primary goal because they want to get rid of assad first, division 30 have ever died, fled or defected and another american backed rebel just joined daesh. If americans/british troops go in it could become a bloodbath, they will be shot at by everyone.

If they go in to crush daesh it won't be long before they face pressure to get rid of assad. And if assad is gone wtf will happen to the army and the air force? For this reason i doubt it will end up happening - sounds nice on paper but the actual logistics of it?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If they actually target the regime as well as ISIS then the consequences could be even worse than the Iraq War. ISIS can survive Western aerial bombardment, the Syrian state cannot, so who would fill the vacuum?
 
Osborne mentioned bombing both ISIS and Assad yesterday, Fox (given his past how is anyone taking him seriously again? Do they think that we are goldfish?) seems to be arguing only for bombing ISIS but there is more than a bit of an allusion in what he says to leaving the door open to bombing Assad as well.
 
J Ed said:
If they actually target the regime as well as ISIS then the consequences could be even worse than the Iraq War. ISIS can survive Western aerial bombardment, the Syrian state cannot, so who would fill the vacuum?
Click to expand...

The thing is if assad is killed or deposed then the syrian state will split and what the fuck will happen to those civilians who have been relatively safe in government held areas? What the fuck happens to the army and the air force - what would be to stop some of those weapons eventually handing up in the hands of ISIS? Given that, and Russia's military interests in Syria I don't see how this can end well at all
 
frogwoman said:
The thing is if assad is killed or deposed then the syrian state will split and what the fuck will happen to those civilians who have been relatively safe in government held areas? What the fuck happens to the army and the air force - what would be to stop some of those weapons eventually handing up in the hands of ISIS? Given that, and Russia's military interests in Syria I don't see how this can end well at all
Click to expand...

There has been a big increase in Russian military aid, and military advisers and special forces, in the past few months. It seems entirely possible to me that this might be in response to their concern that NATO might be about to intervene against both the regime and ISIS. Even if they were right and they were totally able to eliminate ISIS and the Assad regime, they would be giving the country to an opposition dominated by Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-like groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

teqniq
Huge earthquake in Turkey and Northern Syria 05-06/02/23
2 3
Replies
83
Views
3K
JimW
JimW
P
The next American Civil War
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
321
Views
15K
pbsmooth
P
MrCurry
After Ukraine, what’s next?
2 3
Replies
76
Views
5K
Dogsauce
Dogsauce
T
Hong Kong: what next?
65 66 67 68 69
Replies
2K
Views
82K
Yossarian
Yossarian
H
Syria, attack on Conoco gas plant in Feburary 2018
Replies
1
Views
348
yield
Y
Back
Top Bottom