Syrian rebels suffer huge losses in Aleppo offensive, retreat - Polidicks

[QUOTE] [IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63190000/jpg/_63190844_63190843.jpg[/IMG] [B]There has been heavy fighting in Syria's biggest city of Aleppo, with state media saying rebels have suffered big losses in their latest assault. Rebel commanders had announced a major offensive on Friday to secure control of the whole of the city.[/B] [B]Both sides reported clashes across Aleppo but state media said counter-attacks had inflicted heavy losses. [/B] Activist groups say 150 people were killed across Syria on Friday, 40 of them in Aleppo. [B]The signs are that the rebels simply lack the firepower and the manpower to score a significant breakthrough, the BBC's Jim Muir reports from Beirut.[/B] By contrast, the government side has made full use of its heavy weapons, tanks and monopoly of air power, our correspondent says. Activists estimate more than 27,000 people have died in the violence since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began last year. [B]'Non-stop'[/B] State television reported attacks on what it called "terrorist centres" in 10 different locations, saying heavy losses had been inflicted. Residents of Aleppo neighbourhoods previously spared the worst of the fighting told AFP news agency on Friday that the violence was unprecedented. "The sound from the fighting... has been non-stop," said a resident of the central district of Sulamaniyeh, who identified himself as Ziad. [B]"Everyone is terrified. I have never heard anything like this before." [/B] Abu Furat, one of the leaders of the rebels' al-Tawhid Brigade, admitted fighters had had to retreat from because they were out-gunned. "To win a guerrilla street war, you have to have bombs and we don't," he said. Despite all their advantages, government forces have clearly not been able to dislodge the tenacious rebel fighters from many parts of the city, where the destruction has been massive as the stalemated struggle goes on, our correspondent adds.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19769056"]bbc[/URL]

If these guys want a clear chance of winning they need NATO air support. But with China and Russia being dicks and denying the UN power to call on NATO the war is going to continue to drag out. It's still a step backwards, but I don't think the war is lost.

[QUOTE=JDER14;37842195]If these guys want a clear chance of winning they need NATO air support. But with China and Russia being dicks and denying the UN power to call on NATO the war is going to continue to drag out. It's still a step backwards, but I don't think the war is lost.[/QUOTE] Intervention would likely cause alot more casualties then anything else. I'm sure nobody wants that. Plus the Syrian army was and probably still is supported by Russia, they likely have lots of anti-aircraft weapons hidden in cities, not to mention chemical weapons in many cities.

[QUOTE=JDER14;37842195]If these guys want a clear chance of winning they need NATO air support. But with China and Russia being dicks and denying the UN power to call on NATO the war is going to continue to drag out. It's still a step backwards, but I don't think the war is lost.[/QUOTE] This is good, China and Russia are just telling the rest of the world to fuck off, which is how it should be. Everyone needs to stay within their respective borders.

[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;37842281]This is good, China and Russia are just telling the rest of the world to fuck off, which is how it should be. Everyone needs to stay within their respective borders.[/QUOTE] But then China and Russia wouldn't be staying in their respective borders if they were ordering the rest of the world not do this or that.

Militarily stay within their borders? Since when was Russia/China actively exerting military power to stop other countries from intervening?

[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;37842784]Militarily stay within their borders? Since when was Russia/China actively exerting military power to stop other countries from intervening?[/QUOTE] Russia had Kuznetsov carrier group in Tartus for quite awhile and some warships until just a month ago.

The UN or NATO must intervene god damnit.

Tartus has a Russian owned port, though. And a logistical point, rather than I 'I own this place because I can' kinda thing

[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;37842844]Tartus has a Russian owned port, though. And a logistical point, rather than I 'I own this place because I can' kinda thing[/QUOTE] Russia totally dident have a mass of their naval ships all of a sudden at a high point of international tension there for nothing.

[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;37842281]This is good, China and Russia are just telling the rest of the world to fuck off, which is how it should be. Everyone needs to stay within their respective borders.[/QUOTE] Yeap, country should be allowed to slaughter their people like they want too.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37842867]Yeap, country should be allowed to slaughter their people like they want too.[/QUOTE] That doesent mean you should come in and back a onesided agreement.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37842873]That doesent mean you should come in and back a onesided agreement.[/QUOTE] It means there should be an ability to protect civilians or to eliminate one sides ability to cause massive civilians casualtys.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37842911]It means there should be an ability to protect civilians or to eliminate one sides ability to cause massive civilians casualtys.[/QUOTE] Thats exactly what should not happen.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37842915]Thats exactly what should not happen.[/QUOTE] Why is that? When civlilans are be specifically targeted by a group I do believe the right thing would be to step in.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37842927]Why is that? When civlilans are be specifically targeted by a group I do believe the right thing would be to step in.[/QUOTE] Because onesided agreements aren't how the UN works and its obvious if NATO intervenes they're going to support a pro-NATO government instead of a independent election for all Syrians.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37842945]Because onesided agreements aren't how the UN works and its obvious if NATO intervenes they're going to support a pro-NATO government instead of a independent election for all Syrians.[/QUOTE] Just like in Libya? They are not going to prop up some pro NATO regime, specifically if China and Russia are on board. Even is they did support a pro NATO government it is better than hundreds of Syrians being killed each day.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37842967]Just like in Libya? They are not going to prop up some pro NATO regime, specifically if China and Russia are on board. Even is they did support a pro NATO government it is better than hundreds of Syrians being killed each day.[/QUOTE] It really isn't, military intervention would cause more harm then good. Most of the casualties are military in places like Aleppo. Its probably even harder since they blend in with civilians and take cover in civilian housing complexes. What happened today was rebels trying to take Aleppo and the Syrian army defending their territory.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37842984]It really isn't, military intervention would cause more harm then good. Most of the casualties are military in places like Aleppo. Its probably even harder since they blend in with civilians and take cover in civilian housing complexes. What happened today was rebels trying to take Aleppo and the Syrian army defending their territory.[/QUOTE] Im not just talking about today, I'm talking about the war in general. Civilians are being targeted specifically by the Syrian government. I know the rebels have committed crimes too, but no where on the scale the Syrian government is.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37842945]Because onesided agreements aren't how the UN works and its obvious if NATO intervenes they're going to support a pro-NATO government instead of a independent election for all Syrians.[/QUOTE] I see people being slaughtered by their own government and the only reason why we shouldn't intervene is because the intervention might be one sided? I don't think NATO would need to support a pro-NATO government if they actually help, the Syrian people would support them for helping get rid of a horrible government.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37842911]It means there should be an ability to protect civilians or to eliminate one sides ability to cause massive civilians casualtys.[/QUOTE] See, this is the self-fulfilling prophecy of Military Intervention. America and its Arab allies have been giving the rebels money and weapons, while Iran and Russia have been assisting Assad and his goons in the same way. Now that the rebels are losing against Assad, we have to send in NATO to "protect" civilian lives. What a load of fucking bullshit. As if I'm thick enough to buy that pretext. Military intervention as a way to "protect civilians" is another fucking excuse to send in the cavalry when really its just another fucking strategic move. It weaponizes the memory of those massacred as another pretext for intervention into what has been for a good while now a conflict fueled by two sides as a proxy war. And if you oppose intervention, obviously you are an Assad apologist/sympathizer, and you don't care about civilians, so the whole thing is completely foolproof. However, NATO won't intervene because they know Iran and Russia WILL NOT let Assad fall. It would stop being a proxy war and become a full-blown military conflict.

I wonder what would happen if Syrian rebels came across a chemical weapons depot in a town, then did not realize what it was and used it against the regime thinking it was a normal mortar or artillery shell.

They'd probably blame it on Assad using WMD's on civilians.

[QUOTE=Florence;37843135]See, this is the self-fulfilling prophecy of Military Intervention. America and its Arab allies have been giving the rebels money and weapons, while Iran and Russia have been assisting Assad and his goons in the same way. Now that the rebels are losing against Assad, we have to send in NATO to "protect" civilian lives. What a load of fucking bullshit. As if I'm thick enough to buy that pretext. Military intervention as a way to "protect civilians" is another fucking excuse to send in the cavalry when really its just another fucking strategic move. It weaponizes the memory of those massacred as another pretext for intervention into what has been for a good while now a conflict fueled by two sides as a proxy war. And if you oppose intervention, obviously you are an Assad apologist/sympathizer, and you don't care about civilians, so the whole thing is completely foolproof. However, NATO won't intervene because they know Iran and Russia WILL NOT let Assad fall. It would stop being a proxy war and become a full-blown military conflict.[/QUOTE] Its not a proxy war, there no reason for it to be a proxy war. There is no way in hell Iran and Russia would risk a "full blown military conflict" over Syria. If Russia and China where to cooperate to insure that civilians where not targeted they wouldn't have to worry about NATO installing a government. Civilians being tortured and murdered in mass numbers needs to be stopped, I'm sorry if the downfall of the regime plays to a NATO cause but it shouldn't stop the UN from stopping the slaughter.

Okay and what about the massive amount of pro-Assad supporters or people who dislike the opposition which includes the large amount of foreign fighters and Jihadi. Its obvious its a civil war and both sides need to be accounted for. Assad's party needs to work with the opposition and free civilian elections need to come out of it in a unbias manner for all Syrians which represents every region in Syria. I don't want NATO installing its own government.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37843275]Okay and what about the massive amount of pro-Assad supporters or people who dislike the opposition which includes the large amount of foreign fighters and Jihadi. Its obvious its a civil war and both sides need to be accounted for. Assad's party needs to work with the opposition and free civilian elections need to come out of it in a unbias manner for all Syrians which represents every region in Syria. I don't want NATO installing its own government.[/QUOTE] Assad isn't going to work with the opposition. The UN and everyone else has been pushing for that for a year. Its just going to continue until one side kills off the other. Once again if Russia and China would cooperate there wouldn't have to be worry of a NATO government being installed. [editline]29th September 2012[/editline] Even if a pro NATO government came into power it would be better than fucking Assad.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37843316]Assad isn't going to work with the opposition. The UN and everyone else has been pushing for that for a year. Its just going to continue until one side kills off the other. Once again if Russia and China would cooperate there wouldn't have to be worry of a NATO government being installed. [editline]29th September 2012[/editline] Even if a pro NATO government came into power it would be better than fucking Assad.[/QUOTE] And neither does the opposition. If foreign intervention comes in I want both sides engaged as hostiles.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37843331]And neither does the opposition. If foreign intervention comes in I want both sides engaged as hostiles.[/QUOTE] So you want to target those who are fighting against a regime who represses its people, specifically shells civilian areas and conducts mass torture?

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37843404]So you want to target those who are fighting against a regime who represses its people, specifically shells civilian areas and conducts mass torture?[/QUOTE] So you want Islamists, forigen jihadi and a massive pro-assad insurgency popping up? They're combatants in a civil war, and I want a unbias solution.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37843331]And neither does the opposition. If foreign intervention comes in I want [B]both sides engaged as hostiles.[/B][/QUOTE] what is there something im missing here