• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Activists: Syrian Rebels take Christian Village

humbolt said:
I've been watching those increases all the way along. We've cut our military in favor of maintaining entitlement spending. We're giving our military a 1% pay increase, which is an additional slap in the face to those serving. I will never say we can't cut military spending in some areas - but to cut as we have and then to propose additional action is foolhardy in the extreme. Now, this little Syrian adventure, which is largely pointless, is just pushing to far for an outcome that we truly can't predict. This is not the Balkans. There will be a reaction and we can be touched.
Click to expand...

And we very much agree.
 
humbolt said:
I don't disagree, but we are globally involved whether we like it or not. The problem is that we see interests where there aren't any worth the effort. Syria is one such place. We missed the window of opportunity. We should forget it now. We blew it. Yeah, the chemical weapons are a problem. They just aren't our problem right this minute. As Obama said, it's the world's problem. We are not the world. We can make one big problem for the rest of the world, though.
Click to expand...

Damn straight... I am not isolationist but until we get our own house in order we are screwing ourselves with all this stuff.

Our national infrastructure is rated at a D- for gods sake.
 
Montecresto said:
AMMAN, Jordan (AP) -- Rebels including al-Qaida-linked fighters gained control of a Christian village northeast of the capital Damascus, Syrian activists said Sunday. Government media provided a dramatically different account of the battle suggesting regime forces were winning.

The rebel advance into the area this week was spearheaded by Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Nusra Front, exacerbating fears among Syrians and religious minorities about the role played by Islamic extremists within the rebel ranks.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Rami Abdul-Rahman, said Jabhat al-Nusra backed by another group, the Qalamon Liberation Front, moved into the village after heavy clashes with the army late Saturday. He said around 1,500 rebels are inside the town.

So here we have president Assad's forces fighting to defend a Christian village from the terrorists and the US wants to attack Assad's forces. This is very twisted!

News from The Associated Press
Click to expand...

If both USA and Russia supply Assad; there won't be a lot of profit in this mess. Russia got first pick. Either we pick the fat kid nobody wants and just put him in right field, or we go into the game down one player.
 
Snappo said:
If both USA and Russia supply Assad; there won't be a lot of profit in this mess. Russia got first pick. Either we pick the fat kid nobody wants and just put him in right field, or we go into the game down one player.
Click to expand...

There really is no humanitarian place in your heart is there. I don't know what to say to you Snap, seriously.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Damn straight... I am not isolationist but until we get our own house in order we are screwing ourselves with all this stuff.

Our national infrastructure is rated at a D- for gods sake.
Click to expand...
There's much to do here. The problem is that nobody is doing it. No leadership. This is not just a national problem, and not limited to Obama. Military in disarray. No national energy policy and programs to address the problems. Cities going bankrupt. States on the verge of bankruptcy. No meaningful employment. All this, and the best we can do is bomb Syria? To teach Assad a lesson? What lesson would that be? I, for one, have no idea. If it's a matter of principle, Assad would never have used CW in the first place, if he truly has. I seriously doubt a few days of bombing will change his principles. It may harden them.
 
humbolt said:
What you've described is exactly what we saw in the Balkans with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

And throughout the Muslim world. Any time the democracies become involved in internal Islamic struggles, no matter how we might want to help, they are resentful and even more determined to attack the west. Time to start sitting them out, rescuing Christians perhaps, and letting them handle the messes they've created.
 
Montecresto said:
There really is no humanitarian place in your heart is there. I don't know what to say to you Snap, seriously.
Click to expand...

I care about Americans and Israelis. It's not my turn to care about arabs. The Arab League asked USA to get involved. So we are. With any luck, USA will make a bunch of money on this civil war.
 
humbolt said:
I don't disagree, but we are globally involved whether we like it or not. The problem is that we see interests where there aren't any worth the effort. Syria is one such place. We missed the window of opportunity. We should forget it now. We blew it. Yeah, the chemical weapons are a problem. They just aren't our problem right this minute. As Obama said, it's the world's problem. We are not the world. We can make one big problem for the rest of the world, though.
Click to expand...

The US congress should follow the President's lead and change the administration's proposed motion to one where the US supports and will participate in an action against Syrian facilities that is supported and adopted by the UN and/or NATO or some other significant group of nations in a joint effort. That way, everyone can save face and the onus is put back on those countries that oppose such action.
 
Montecresto said:
AMMAN, Jordan (AP) -- Rebels including al-Qaida-linked fighters gained control of a Christian village northeast of the capital Damascus, Syrian activists said Sunday. Government media provided a dramatically different account of the battle suggesting regime forces were winning.

The rebel advance into the area this week was spearheaded by Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Nusra Front, exacerbating fears among Syrians and religious minorities about the role played by Islamic extremists within the rebel ranks.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Rami Abdul-Rahman, said Jabhat al-Nusra backed by another group, the Qalamon Liberation Front, moved into the village after heavy clashes with the army late Saturday. He said around 1,500 rebels are inside the town.

So here we have president Assad's forces fighting to defend a Christian village from the terrorists and the US wants to attack Assad's forces. This is very twisted!

News from The Associated Press
Click to expand...

Assad is a secularist. He didn't allow islamic extremism to flourish and he had a tolerant society for all religions. Assad himself belongs to a specific school of islamic thought that anti-radical.
The rebels are islamist supremacists, jihadists.

But Assad is a dictator and a tyrant. So there is no reason to support him or the jihadi rebels.
The only course of action that NATO or the US alone or anyone can take is to go in, wipe the floor with both faction and then restore democracy. Anything else is foolish.
 
Rainman05 said:
Assad is a secularist. He didn't allow islamic extremism to flourish and he had a tolerant society for all religions. Assad himself belongs to a specific school of islamic thought that anti-radical.
The rebels are islamist supremacists, jihadists.

But Assad is a dictator and a tyrant. So there is no reason to support him or the jihadi rebels.
The only course of action that NATO or the US alone or anyone can take is to go in, wipe the floor with both faction and then restore democracy. Anything else is foolish.
Click to expand...

Restore democracy! Very funny.
 
Montecresto said:
Is it really so necessary to be ugly like this. Does it really bother you that Assad's forces fought a battle with the extremists to defend a Christian village?
Click to expand...

No it bothers me that you continue to make excuses for Assad and his government. The latest excuse seems to be that he is a crusader fighting off the evil muslim hordes, pretty disgusting.
 
Montecresto said:
Restore democracy! Very funny.
Click to expand...

Syria was always unstable. After centuries of being part of the ottoman empire, when the ottoman empire was disolved after WW1, Syria was established as 5 separate states (by the French) in order to accommodate religious and ethnic differences. It was probably the most stable period it has seen. After that, it was established as republic... and then ww2 happened. After ww2, it continued to be a republic... it became independent (despite the French trying to prevent that) but... freedom meant that there was no more French influence in syria to moderate the various, often times extremist factions. This meant civil upheavel and often times persecution of Christians. So although independent, Syria was in a constant state of anarchy. It changed its flag about 3-4 (depending on who was in power) until finally, the Assad regime (not Bashir, his father) came along.

The Assads crushed islamic fundamentalism, restored order, enacted numerous reforms to consolidate their power, took away democracy, and the country saw a process of great economic expansion. So it was basically a benevolent dictatorship. And it's ironically, until the rise of islam supremacism in Syria and the start of the civil war, that Syria, under the Assads, has seen the best period of its existence for centuries.
 
Last edited:
Higgins86 said:
No it bothers me that you continue to make excuses for Assad and his government. The latest excuse seems to be that he is a crusader fighting off the evil muslim hordes, pretty disgusting.
Click to expand...

He is not a crusader, but he is a secularist. He is... was, at best, a benevolent dictator.

The revolution in Syria is not about democracy. The rebels dont' want that. They want sharia law and islamic theocracy instituted. They are jihadists, not liberators.

So there is no good side in the Syrian conflict. There is just 2 sides of the same dictatorial coin. One is a secular dictatorship, the other is an islamic one. That's why I keep on saying, the only genuine course of action that the west can take to make sure democracy and civil rights are respected in Syria is to go in, full force, wipe the floor with both the rebel forces and the Assad regime, and then restore democracy, and get out.

See my previous post too.
 
Rainman05 said:
Syria was always unstable. After centuries of being part of the ottoman empire, when the ottoman empire was disolved after WW1, Syria was established as 5 separate states (by the French) in order to accommodate religious and ethnic differences. It was probably the most stable period it has seen. After that, it was established as republic... and then ww2 happened. After ww2, it continued to be a republic... it became independent (despite the French trying to prevent that) but... freedom meant that there was no more French influence in syria to moderate the various, often times extremist factions. This meant civil upheavel and often times persecution of Christians. So although independent, Syria was in a constant state of anarchy. It changed its flag about 3-4 (depending on who was in power) until finally, the Assad regime (not Bashir, his father) came along.

The Assads crushed islamic fundamentalism, restored order, enacted numerous reforms to consolidate their power, took away democracy, and the country saw a process of great economic expansion. So it was basically a benevolent dictatorship. And it's ironically, until the rise of islam supremacism in Syria and the start of the civil war, that Syria, under the Assads, has seen the best period of its existence for centuries.
Click to expand...

I would certainly agree with you that by comparison, life has been smoother under the Assad's, which is why I have argued from the beginning that the US should have stayed out of the conflict, Assad would have crushed it early on and there wouldn't be 100,000 dead and it wouldn't be escalating into the, threatening to the region and beyond, crises that it is.
 
Higgins86 said:
No it bothers me that you continue to make excuses for Assad and his government. The latest excuse seems to be that he is a crusader fighting off the evil muslim hordes, pretty disgusting.
Click to expand...

I'm making no excuses for anyone. I posted the story, I didn't write it or make it up. If you were interested in truth and justice, you would read it and see that Assad's forces did indeed battle Islamic extremists forces outside this Christian village in an attempt to protect it, were overwhelmed and had to withdraw. The extremists (that you love to support) subsequently sacked the city, killing many. Those that could have fled, the entire fate is presently unknown. You are on the wrong side of this. Several other posters have pointed out Assad's history of religious tolerance, but this doesn't seem to be important to those who's hearts are set on war.
 
Rainman05 said:
He is not a crusader, but he is a secularist. He is... was, at best, a benevolent dictator.

The revolution in Syria is not about democracy. The rebels dont' want that. They want sharia law and islamic theocracy instituted. They are jihadists, not liberators.

So there is no good side in the Syrian conflict. There is just 2 sides of the same dictatorial coin. One is a secular dictatorship, the other is an islamic one. That's why I keep on saying, the only genuine course of action that the west can take to make sure democracy and civil rights are respected in Syria is to go in, full force, wipe the floor with both the rebel forces and the Assad regime, and then restore democracy, and get out.

See my previous post too.
Click to expand...

I would agree with your assessment of the jihadists, but you previously, and correctly, pointed out earlier that Syria was much calmer under the Assad's then many other periods in their history, so there is a better side to support and that is of course Assad.
Which is by far an excuse of any and all of Assad's wrong doings.
 
Higgins86 said:
No it bothers me that you continue to make excuses for Assad and his government. The latest excuse seems to be that he is a crusader fighting off the evil muslim hordes, pretty disgusting.
Click to expand...

Actually he and Putin have been pointing out forever that he is fighting of evil hordes, extremists, terrorists within his country.
 
CRUE CAB said:
So what? Is that worth American lives and money?
Click to expand...


Hey Crue. No it isn't worth it, especially sense that still is unconfirmed. We all know chemical weapons weren't used to attack America at any rate.
 
CRUE CAB said:
So what? Is that worth American lives and money?
Click to expand...

Depends on how you look at things. Are you of the mindset that we should have gotten involved with Germany when they were killing Jewish people? I only use that example, because it's an example of how things can escalate when a dictator (or rebels) are allowed to do something inhuman without consequences.

I'm of the mindset that we should not be the world police and if the U.N. authorizes any action to be taken, it should be taken by all of the U.N. and not just the U.S.
 
TheNextEra said:
Depends on how you look at things. Are you of the mindset that we should have gotten involved with Germany when they were killing Jewish people?

I'm of the mindset that we should not be the world police and if the U.N. authorizes any action to be taken, it should be taken by all of the U.N. and not just the U.S.
Click to expand...
We didnt go to Germany because they were killing Jews.
And even if we did, 1400 is not 7 million.
There need not be any US action on this at all.
Its time for the US to worry about the US.
 
CRUE CAB said:
We didnt go to Germany because they were killing Jews.
And even if we did, 1400 is not 7 million.
Click to expand...

I realize we didn't. Some are of the mindset that if we went in earlier we could have stopped it from being 7 million Jews that were killed.

CRUE CAB said:
There need not be any US action on this at all.
Its time for the US to worry about the US.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm simply stating this should be a U.N. thing and if they don't want to take action, we shouldn't either.
 
I could more easily see granting refugee status. I am not sure bombing will help the people. The rebels have their issues and so does the government. It's a total mess.


sawdust said:
Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't we take our army and help those guys. Jesus, what have we become?
Click to expand...
 
CanadaJohn said:
The US congress should follow the President's lead and change the administration's proposed motion to one where the US supports and will participate in an action against Syrian facilities that is supported and adopted by the UN and/or NATO or some other significant group of nations in a joint effort. That way, everyone can save face and the onus is put back on those countries that oppose such action.
Click to expand...

Good morning, CJ! :2wave:

Excellent suggestion! :thumbs: Do you think anyone is the administration is listening? :shock:
 
polgara said:
Good morning, CJ! :2wave:

Excellent suggestion! :thumbs: Do you think anyone is the administration is listening? :shock:
Click to expand...

Good morning Lady P. I seriously doubt this administration listens to anyone other than themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom