• As Iraqi army is destroyed, Syrian Army advances, cutting off rebels from Lebanese border
    28 replies, posted
[IMG]http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2013/11/Mideast-Syria_Horo-5.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]Syrian government forces captured areas near the border with Lebanon on Friday, cutting supply lines for opposition fighters as the army tightens its grip northwest of the capital, state media said. Syrian troops are approaching the mountain resort of Zabadani, which has been under rebel control for two years, cutting it off from rebel-held areas in the mountainous Qalamoun region, state TV said. Syrian forces, bolstered by fighters from Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah, have systematically captured most of the rebel-held towns along the mountainous frontier since launching an offensive in the region in November. State TV said troops in the Qalamoun region reached the edge of the Lebanese border town Tufeil. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported clashes in the area on Friday. A Syrian army officer told state TV that the aim of the operation is to cut crossing points rebels use for supplies and “to separate Qalamoun from Zabadani.” “With this operation, our heroes of the Syrian Arab Army have tightened their grip on armed groups and they will all be killed in the areas that they fled to,” said the officer, whose name was not given.[/QUOTE] [url]http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/06/27/Syrian-troops-advance-near-Lebanon-border.html[/url]
-sNip-.
Good. Starve those fuckers of the resources they need to kill innocent people inside of Lebanon. Fucking cowards.
Man, if you told me I would be rooting for the Syrian Army when the civil war broke out, I would of called you retarded. But, now look at this clusterfuck of the Middle East.
You wonder how this would've played out if Obama actually went through with the airstrikes against the Syrians a while back
[QUOTE=Mr.Goodcat;45238354]Man, if you told me I would be rooting for the Syrian Army when the civil war broke out, I would of called you retarded. But, now look at this clusterfuck of the Middle East.[/QUOTE] They're still cunts but fuck we need them
We should have supported Assad since the very beginning
[QUOTE=Scar;45238761]We should have supported Assad since the very beginning[/QUOTE] Or if we fucking supported the rebels ISIS would have never gained any traction at all and Syria wouldn't be ruled by an evil dictator. How about you actually read the fucking news before you comment on it?
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;45238921]Or if we fucking supported the rebels ISIS would have never gained any traction at all and Syria wouldn't be ruled by an evil dictator. How about you actually read the fucking news before you comment on it?[/QUOTE] Oh right, I must be uninformed because I disagree with Facepunch's popular sentiment.
Both of you aren't right, to be honest. Regardless of what side was backed throughout the civil war, the other would have come into a disgustingly threatening position of power and caused their own major problems. Honestly, and I'm usually a big backer of the whole 'world police' thing cause as you can see, the middle east in general needs more outside players keeping that shit contained, we shouldn't have sided with one or the other. Syria is probably the largest shitshow the middle east has ever had, and getting -too- involved could have and did cause a dumpload of trouble. That being said, no one's to blame here. Helping either side would have had consequences, and not helping at all would have also had consequences. It's just a matter of what decision seemed right at the time, which at the time backing the rebels made sense
[QUOTE=Scar;45238761]We should have supported Assad since the very beginning[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Masterofstars;45238921]Or if we fucking supported the rebels ISIS would have never gained any traction at all and Syria wouldn't be ruled by an evil dictator. How about you actually read the fucking news before you comment on it?[/QUOTE] How about neither? Assad is a tyrant and there is no way we ever could have supported him. We also shouldn't have expected an armed conflict to topple him like it did in other Middle East countries, given his relatively large public support as well as the continued support from Russia. Either way, ISIS existed long before the Syrian civil war kicked off - the war only accelerated their growth due to the power vacuum that existed. What we did or didn't do in Syria, would have at best only delayed the inevitable.
[QUOTE=butt2089;45239279]How about neither? Assad is a tyrant and there is no way we ever could have supported him. We also shouldn't have expected an armed conflict to topple him like it did in other Middle East countries, given his relatively large public support as well as the continued support from Russia. Either way, ISIS existed long before the Syrian civil war kicked off - the war only accelerated their growth due to the power vacuum that existed. What we did or didn't do in Syria, would have at best only delayed the inevitable.[/QUOTE] ISIS only gained such power because they were able to hijack the Syrian revolution. If the revolution managed to win before it was corrupted we could have prevented them from gaining territory to use as training grounds and supply bases.
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;45240026]ISIS only gained such power because they were able to hijack the Syrian revolution. If the revolution managed to win before it was corrupted we could have prevented them from gaining territory to use as training grounds and supply bases.[/QUOTE] [I]Alternate realities are not historical precedent.[/I] They are interventionist handwaving, and nothing more.
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;45240026]ISIS only gained such power because they were able to hijack the Syrian revolution. If the revolution managed to win before it was corrupted we could have prevented them from gaining territory to use as training grounds and supply bases.[/QUOTE] Training grounds and supply bases already existed in Iraq as well in Libya and a number of other countries, they didn't need any in Syria - and those that did exist would be most vulnerable to attack by Pro-Assad forces. There wouldn't have been all that much to gain in Syria either, beyond topping up their coffers and doing some target practice. There are also pictures of Shakir Wahiyib, the Iraq-based ISIS 'executioner', holding classified Iraqi government documents. The power they've exerted in Iraq lay in having experienced foreign fighters, insiders within the Iraqi government and being able to exploit the weakness of the Iraqi army.
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;45240026]ISIS only gained such power because they were able to hijack the Syrian revolution. If the revolution managed to win before it was corrupted we could have prevented them from gaining territory to use as training grounds and supply bases.[/QUOTE] Hardly. ISIS didn't really 'hijack' the Syrian revolution, they didn't come from anywhere, the support for them came from within the rebel forces. And given how organized they already were compared to the rest, they could've easily erupted after the destruction/weakening of Syrian army. One could argue they could've acquired the power more easily.
Go Syrian army and Hezbolla! How times change.
To be honest, the whole time I thought we should let Assad win because despite the fact he's an evil dictator, he's a source of stability in Syria. I think that if the rebels win, we will see an effect like Libya in the recent Arab spring, or even Iran in the 1950's, where the rebel groups split apart and fight over control for the government, making it even worse than when they started. You can see how that turned out in Iran. Facepunch is probably going to hate me for this just because I have a different opinion, but whatever.
The Syrian army wins even if fighting against several rebel groups and terrorists. The Iraqi army, much better equipped than the Syrian army, runs away from a bunch of rebels and gives them all the equipment without a fight. GG
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;45238921]Or if we fucking supported the rebels ISIS would have never gained any traction at all and Syria wouldn't be ruled by an evil dictator. How about you actually read the fucking news before you comment on it?[/QUOTE] Throwing out a government is the easy part of a revolution you know. Quite a few revolutions historically have gone to shit after they defeat the former government.
[QUOTE=Mr.Goodcat;45238354]Man, if you told me I would be rooting for the Syrian Army when the civil war broke out, I would of called you retarded. But, now look at this clusterfuck of the Middle East.[/QUOTE] Yeah I agree it's like when the Germans became the good guys too
[QUOTE=gudman;45240379]Hardly. ISIS didn't really 'hijack' the Syrian revolution, they didn't come from anywhere, the support for them came from within the rebel forces. And given how organized they already were compared to the rest, they could've easily erupted after the destruction/weakening of Syrian army. One could argue they could've acquired the power more easily.[/QUOTE] They came from Iraq. They were originally called the Islamic State of Iraq, but when the Syrian war broke out, they extended it to "and Syria" to become ISIS and were far more successful there. Once they gained the material, men and experience from Syria, they returned to Iraq in greater force, which is why you see Iraq finally imploding under them. I believe they've been around as ISI since 2006 or so. They're not new and didn't pop into existence out of no where. They just had a big growth boom in the last year or so to make them an actual serious threat.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;45240140][I]Alternate realities are not historical precedent.[/I] They are interventionist handwaving, and nothing more.[/QUOTE] So exactly what the other guy did. [QUOTE=TornadoAP;45241027]To be honest, the whole time I thought we should let Assad win because despite the fact he's an evil dictator, he's a source of stability in Syria. I think that if the rebels win, we will see an effect like Libya in the recent Arab spring, or even Iran in the 1950's, where the rebel groups split apart and fight over control for the government, making it even worse than when they started. You can see how that turned out in Iran. Facepunch is probably going to hate me for this just because I have a different opinion, but whatever.[/QUOTE] I don't agree that we should let insane dictators have their job just because they are best at gunning down their opposition.
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;45245759] I don't agree that we should let insane dictators have their job just because they are best at gunning down their opposition.[/QUOTE] Did I ever say that? No I didn't, I said this insane dictator can keep the country from becoming into an even bloodier civil war.
[QUOTE=ionuttzu;45241115]The Syrian army wins even if fighting against several rebel groups and terrorists. The Iraqi army, much better equipped than the Syrian army, runs away from a bunch of rebels and gives them all the equipment without a fight. GG[/QUOTE] Because the Syrian army is an experienced armed forces which has a long standing history of service. The Iraqi army on the other hand is pretty much a completely green army which was facing elements of the old regime army which was essentially deconstructed by the new regime in a fear of them subverting the power. There's another point to remember - ISIS is an Iraqi rebel group. They originate from Iraq and their powerbase is in Iraq. They merely became very active in Syria during the civil war. As to air strikes in Syria - people need to remember that Assad was actually bloody careful to stay within relative humane fighting standards in order to be propped up by others against similaar bombing as happened in Lybia. There's a reason his regime actually worked with other powers in order to destroy some of the biological and chemical warfare materiel and did their best to not employ it either. The aid given to Lybian rebels was questionable more often than not and quickly outgrew the no fly zone mandate to bombing civilian areas in Tripoli, bombing armoured vehicle collumns and a lot of other things which clearly had nothing to do with the airforce at all. Doing the same in Syria would be much harder. In part, because the Russians were heavily against it, the Chinese were on the fence and apart from France, no European country really wanted it either. [QUOTE=Masterofstars;45245759]So exactly what the other guy did. I don't agree that we should let insane dictators have their job just because they are best at gunning down their opposition.[/QUOTE] The thing is, as long as certain basic standards are met, other nations should not really dictate how the political scene in a country should look like. The fact that there is essentially a position of a monarch in itself isn't bad. As long as some opposition, political movements and human rights are guaranteed. And while some pressure can exist on civil and political levels, unless there's a very significant threat it should not on a military level.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45238432]They're still cunts but fuck we need them[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;OgvhvaSQZeE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgvhvaSQZeE[/video]
The reality is, everybody is wrong. Al-Maliki is a pseudo dictator that tried to destroy the opposition exploiting and encouraging sectarian hate. The ISIS is a violent bunch of killers blinded by the hate against either Sunni Muslims or Assad or Maliki or everything that isn't the caliphate. The US left a mess when they retired and didn't arrest Hussein in the 90s. Now they're adding even more confusion. Iran is just trying to conquer influence in the area and to do so they're becoming friends of their ancient enemies Irak and NATO. Europe could try to be more influential, but the Union doesn't even try despite the waves of immigrants. Assad... well is Assad. Israel is only happy that his potential enemies are killing each other. The result is a geopolitical nightmare and suffering for the Iraqi and Syrian people.
We can see what happens when we interfere in Middle East matters. If we had just let Saddam rule for another few years, this would've happened anyways, and we wouldn't have to worry about the ISISLQXZ retaliating against us.
[QUOTE=Megadave;45255071]We can see what happens when we interfere in Middle East matters. If we had just let Saddam rule for another few years, this would've happened anyways, and we wouldn't have to worry about the ISISLQXZ retaliating against us.[/QUOTE] ISIS has retaliated against us? When? Unless you mean when there were US troops still in Iraq?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.