The Civil War in Syria

This section is kept just for you to discuss anything non sport related from celebrities to politics.

Moderators: Steely Hill, Moderators

France or Russia

France
3
27%
Russia
8
73%
 
Total votes : 11

Postby Michael Myers » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:36 pm

A question to our frineds from USA and Europe. Does your tv show the acts in Syria? Do you see how your journalists are in the hot points as Allepo and Damask
User avatar
Michael Myers
Grass Roots
Grass Roots
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:37 pm
Location: Saint - Peterspurg, Russia

Postby Hams » Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:56 pm

Michael Myers wrote:A question to our frineds from USA and Europe. Does your tv show the acts in Syria? Do you see how your journalists are in the hot points as Allepo and Damask


Over here in the UK we have regular reports almost every day on the TV news about what is happening in Syria.

It appears that Assad has lost control of the North East of his country where the Kurdish people who live haven taken power.
User avatar
Hams
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 38354
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London Supports West Ham United and Atletico Madrid

Postby Michael Myers » Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:50 pm

Hams wrote:
Michael Myers wrote:A question to our frineds from USA and Europe. Does your tv show the acts in Syria? Do you see how your journalists are in the hot points as Allepo and Damask


Over here in the UK we have regular reports almost every day on the TV news about what is happening in Syria.

It appears that Assad has lost control of the North East of his country where the Kurdish people who live haven taken po Over here in the UK we have regular reports almost every day on the TV news about what is happening in Syria.

It appears that Assad has lost control of the North East of his country where the Kurdish people who live haven taken power. wer.

It's interesting. In our tv I heard recently that the army of Syria controls almost all Syria except Allepo(they have 80% of the city)
Did you see the fights in Allepo, some news?
Our journalists showed us the things of terrorist. And this do you name the citizen army? It's the terrorists who are supported by NATO.
User avatar
Michael Myers
Grass Roots
Grass Roots
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:37 pm
Location: Saint - Peterspurg, Russia

Postby Almeida » Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:08 am

It's the terrorists who are supported by NATO.

yeah. just like in Chechnya.)
User avatar
Almeida
Senior Pro
Senior Pro
 
Posts: 3837
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:22 pm
Location: Obama = Osama

Postby eurxe » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:52 pm

It seems that Israel has now attacked a weapons convoy from Syria to Lebanon apperently to stop balance changing weapons from reaching Hizbullah. just 2 days ago the news agancies in Israel said the "Iron dome" defensive missiles were deployed here in the north including in Haifa. I wonder where this is going...

Israeli 'air strike on convoy on Syria-Lebanon border'

Israeli jets have attacked a convoy on the Syria-Lebanon border, unnamed security sources in the region have told news agencies.

The attack came as Israel voiced fears that Syrian missiles and chemical weapons could fall into the hands of militants such as Lebanon's Hezbollah.

It is not clear what the convoy was carrying, but the latest reports suggest it was attacked inside Syria.

Israel did not comment. Syrian state media said a military site was bombed.

Sana news agency quoted an army statement which said: "Israeli fighter jets violated our airspace at dawn today and carried out a direct strike on a scientific research centre in charge of raising our level of resistance and self-defence."

The centre, in Jermana northwest of the capital Damascus, was damaged in the attack, state TV said.

The US State Department has also refused to comment on the reported attacks.

BBC Middle East correspondent Wyre Davies says none of the reports can be verified, although some well-placed diplomats and military sources say they would not be surprised if Israel had acted, given the recent instability in Syria.

The Lebanese military and internal security forces have not officially confirmed the reports, but say there has been increased activity by Israeli warplanes over the country in the past week, and particularly in recent hours.

Iran threat
One report suggested there were fears in Israel that Syria and Hezbollah would take advantage of the overcast weather conditions to send weaponry across the border.

The Associated Press quoted a US official as saying the strike hit a convoy of lorries carrying Russian-made SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles.

A Lebanese army spokesman denied there had been any attack on Lebanese territory, according to L'Orient Le Jour newspaper. Others said an attack took place near the town of Zabadani in southern Syria.

Correspondents say an attack on the Syrian side would cause a major diplomatic incident, as Iran has said it will treat any Israeli attack on Syria as an attack on itself.

The attack came days after Israel moved its Iron Dome defence system to the north of the country.

Correspondents say Israel fears that Lebanese Shia militant group Hezbollah could obtain anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, thus strengthening its ability to respond to Israeli air strikes.

Israel has also joined the US in expressing concern that Syria's presumed chemical weapons stockpile could be taken over by militant groups.

Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom told Israeli radio on Sunday that any sign that Syria was losing its grip on the weapons could lead to Israeli action, even a pre-emptive strike.

Analysts say Israel believes Syria received a battery of SA-17s from Russia after an alleged Israeli air strike in 2007 that destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor.

The US government said in 2008 that the reactor was "not intended for peaceful purposes".

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21264632
User avatar
eurxe
Young Pro
Young Pro
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: Haifa, Israel

Postby Hams » Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:19 pm

Lots of talk now that the west is going to start arming the rebels in Syria.

This must not be allowed to happen as if the Sunni Muslims take power they will create an Islamic state and persecute other religions.

We have already seen in Egypt how the Muslim brotherhood have made a bad situation even worse since they were elected to power.

At least Russia are not afraid to back Assad which should mean that he remains President however the fighting has to stop and all sides need to find a peaceful solution.
User avatar
Hams
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 38354
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London Supports West Ham United and Atletico Madrid

Postby Hoop45 » Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:52 pm

Do you think we should be backing Assad's regime then, Hams?
Hoop45
Legend
Legend
 
Posts: 18708
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby Hams » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:49 pm

floody wrote:Do you think we should be backing Assad's regime then, Hams?


No.

We should be trying to get all sides in Syria to sit down to discuss peace.

If the UK and France decide to arm the rebels then Russia and China have the right to arm Assad.

Do we really want to see world war 3 break out in the middle east?
User avatar
Hams
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 38354
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London Supports West Ham United and Atletico Madrid

Postby Steely Hill » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:50 pm

Here's a better idea - just let them all get on with it and stay well away from it all.
User avatar
Steely Hill
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 38957
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm

Postby eurxe » Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:58 pm

Steely, staying away from it all is a privilage not all countries have. Israel can not live with islamic radicals armed with long range missiles and chemical weapons right across the border.
User avatar
eurxe
Young Pro
Young Pro
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: Haifa, Israel

Postby BMJ » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:42 am

Steely believes that every country should have access to any weapons system it chooses to have.

If the US and the UK can have nukes, why can't Syria?

Maybe I have misunderstood his position.
User avatar
BMJ
Young Pro
Young Pro
 
Posts: 2880
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Steely Hill » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:54 am

BMJ wrote:Steely believes that every country should have access to any weapons system it chooses to have.

If the US and the UK can have nukes, why can't Syria?

Maybe I have misunderstood his position.


my position is very simple - if we feel we have the right to arm ourselves with nukes then we have no business dictating to other nations that they are unable to similarly arm themselves and threaten invasion if they ignore our hypocritical threat.

all nukes should be removed from the face of the Earth and then there would be justification in disarming rogue nations.
User avatar
Steely Hill
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 38957
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm

Postby Steely Hill » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:55 am

eurxe wrote:Steely, staying away from it all is a privilage not all countries have. Israel can not live with islamic radicals armed with long range missiles and chemical weapons right across the border.


quite right.

however Israel is not the UK and we can 'stay away from it all'. Israel is more than capable of defending itself.
User avatar
Steely Hill
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 38957
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm

Postby BMJ » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:21 am

Steely Hill wrote:
BMJ wrote:Steely believes that every country should have access to any weapons system it chooses to have.

If the US and the UK can have nukes, why can't Syria?

Maybe I have misunderstood his position.


my position is very simple - if we feel we have the right to arm ourselves with nukes then we have no business dictating to other nations that they are unable to similarly arm themselves and threaten invasion if they ignore our hypocritical threat.

all nukes should be removed from the face of the Earth and then there would be justification in disarming rogue nations.


Though sound, surely, you don't think the issue is as simple as that. I wish we lived in a world where hypocrisy was a term not even invented but you're off in the land of the fairies with this one.

I just find it hard to actually believe you're "fair dinkum" about it mate. :lol:
User avatar
BMJ
Young Pro
Young Pro
 
Posts: 2880
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Steely Hill » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:30 am

BMJ wrote:
Steely Hill wrote:
BMJ wrote:Steely believes that every country should have access to any weapons system it chooses to have.

If the US and the UK can have nukes, why can't Syria?

Maybe I have misunderstood his position.


my position is very simple - if we feel we have the right to arm ourselves with nukes then we have no business dictating to other nations that they are unable to similarly arm themselves and threaten invasion if they ignore our hypocritical threat.

all nukes should be removed from the face of the Earth and then there would be justification in disarming rogue nations.


Though sound, surely, you don't think the issue is as simple as that. I wish we lived in a world where hypocrisy was a term not even invented but you're off in the land of the fairies with this one.

I just find it hard to actually believe you're "fair dinkum" about it mate. :lol:


so you think we're justified in dictating what weapons are developed by other nations while we have free reign to do as we please?

who makes the final call on this dictatorship? Britain? USA? NATO? Russia?
User avatar
Steely Hill
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 38957
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm

Postby BMJ » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:14 am

Steely Hill wrote:
BMJ wrote:
Steely Hill wrote:
BMJ wrote:Steely believes that every country should have access to any weapons system it chooses to have.

If the US and the UK can have nukes, why can't Syria?

Maybe I have misunderstood his position.


my position is very simple - if we feel we have the right to arm ourselves with nukes then we have no business dictating to other nations that they are unable to similarly arm themselves and threaten invasion if they ignore our hypocritical threat.

all nukes should be removed from the face of the Earth and then there would be justification in disarming rogue nations.


Though sound, surely, you don't think the issue is as simple as that. I wish we lived in a world where hypocrisy was a term not even invented but you're off in the land of the fairies with this one.

I just find it hard to actually believe you're "fair dinkum" about it mate. :lol:


so you think we're justified in dictating what weapons are developed by other nations while we have free reign to do as we please?

who makes the final call on this dictatorship? Britain? USA? NATO? Russia?


In the case of North Korea and Iran, yes, yes I do. This goes beyond pats on the back for passing a hypocrisy integrity test Steely.

All that is asked of both nations, first and foremost, is that they cease their Nuclear Weapons programs, that is all.

That was the same thing that was asked of Saddam. For all these years he played these games with the UN watching his people suffer and all he had to do was let the IAEA inspectors in to have a snoop around and he would still be snorting lines of coke off some Iraqi models a$$ up until this day.

What call? What dictatorship?
User avatar
BMJ
Young Pro
Young Pro
 
Posts: 2880
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Steely Hill » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:17 am

BMJ wrote:
Steely Hill wrote:
BMJ wrote:
Steely Hill wrote:
BMJ wrote:Steely believes that every country should have access to any weapons system it chooses to have.

If the US and the UK can have nukes, why can't Syria?

Maybe I have misunderstood his position.


my position is very simple - if we feel we have the right to arm ourselves with nukes then we have no business dictating to other nations that they are unable to similarly arm themselves and threaten invasion if they ignore our hypocritical threat.

all nukes should be removed from the face of the Earth and then there would be justification in disarming rogue nations.


Though sound, surely, you don't think the issue is as simple as that. I wish we lived in a world where hypocrisy was a term not even invented but you're off in the land of the fairies with this one.

I just find it hard to actually believe you're "fair dinkum" about it mate. :lol:


so you think we're justified in dictating what weapons are developed by other nations while we have free reign to do as we please?

who makes the final call on this dictatorship? Britain? USA? NATO? Russia?


In the case of North Korea and Iran, yes, yes I do. This goes beyond pats on the back for passing a hypocrisy integrity test Steely.

All that is asked of both nations, first and foremost, is that they cease their Nuclear Weapons programs, that is all.

That was the same thing that was asked of Saddam. For all these years he played these games with the UN watching his people suffer and all he had to do was let the IAEA inspectors in to have a snoop around and he would still be snorting lines of coke off some Iraqi models a$$ up until this day.

What call? What dictatorship?


and on what basis should they listen to us telling them to cease their programmes? let's not forget that the only country to have ever used a nuke is one of the nations telling others to stop. it's laughable and, quite obviously, will not be taken seriously.

we've obviously learnt nothing from Saddam then have we if we're just doing the same thing.

go to war with those who want to arm themselves like we do and threaten them with the very weapons we forcefully prevent them from developing.
User avatar
Steely Hill
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 38957
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm

Postby BMJ » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:38 am

Steely Hill wrote:
BMJ wrote:
Steely Hill wrote:
BMJ wrote:
Steely Hill wrote:
BMJ wrote:Steely believes that every country should have access to any weapons system it chooses to have.

If the US and the UK can have nukes, why can't Syria?

Maybe I have misunderstood his position.


my position is very simple - if we feel we have the right to arm ourselves with nukes then we have no business dictating to other nations that they are unable to similarly arm themselves and threaten invasion if they ignore our hypocritical threat.

all nukes should be removed from the face of the Earth and then there would be justification in disarming rogue nations.


Though sound, surely, you don't think the issue is as simple as that. I wish we lived in a world where hypocrisy was a term not even invented but you're off in the land of the fairies with this one.

I just find it hard to actually believe you're "fair dinkum" about it mate. :lol:


so you think we're justified in dictating what weapons are developed by other nations while we have free reign to do as we please?

who makes the final call on this dictatorship? Britain? USA? NATO? Russia?


In the case of North Korea and Iran, yes, yes I do. This goes beyond pats on the back for passing a hypocrisy integrity test Steely.

All that is asked of both nations, first and foremost, is that they cease their Nuclear Weapons programs, that is all.

That was the same thing that was asked of Saddam. For all these years he played these games with the UN watching his people suffer and all he had to do was let the IAEA inspectors in to have a snoop around and he would still be snorting lines of coke off some Iraqi models a$$ up until this day.

What call? What dictatorship?


and on what basis should they listen to us telling them to cease their programmes? let's not forget that the only country to have ever used a nuke is one of the nations telling others to stop. it's laughable and, quite obviously, will not be taken seriously.

we've obviously learnt nothing from Saddam then have we if we're just doing the same thing.

go to war with those who want to arm themselves like we do and threaten them with the very weapons we forcefully prevent them from developing.


The international community is telling them to stop Steely. Only a few weeks ago, all the full members of the security council voted for even more harsh sanctions against North Korea. This includes Russia and China, the latter, is North Korea's only "friend" in the international community. The basis is quite simple. The devil we know is better than the one we don't.

We know that countries that currently possess nuclear weapons have strict protocols when it comes to use of such weapons. These weapons are secure, they are not being sold. We know that each of these countries are more or less stable democracies with more or less competent leaders. These countries have the necessary finances and know how store these weapons. These countries have structures in place to prevent a mad man nuking the planet and starting a nuclear war. We know the US, UK, Britain, and Israel have been involved in multiple wars and never once were nuclear weapons on the table as an instrument. Let's leave the WWII bombs out of this because Atomic bombs were new then and they had to be used, it happened.

We don't have that peace of mind when it comes to Iran and North Korea Steely. That's the difference.
User avatar
BMJ
Young Pro
Young Pro
 
Posts: 2880
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Steely Hill » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:05 pm

and do Iran and North Korea have piece of mind from us and the Yanks?
User avatar
Steely Hill
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 38957
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm

Postby BMJ » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:13 pm

Steely Hill wrote:and do Iran and North Korea have piece of mind from us and the Yanks?


Not when they are pursuing these programs. That's how it should be.
User avatar
BMJ
Young Pro
Young Pro
 
Posts: 2880
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest