Syria conflict: UN suspends all aid after convoy hit

[caervek]

Well, it's your turn to link then because I have seen no proof of rebel chemical attacks.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article...st-rebels-did/

BTW if you google it you can actually find pictures of rebels posing with chemical weapons, they are about as smart as the Ukrainian rebels who uploaded pictures of their new Buks to twitter a fortnight before MH-17 went down lol.

[downnola]

The only side proven by the OCPW to have used chemical weapons so far has been the rebels using Sarin. The article you links basically says the UN think the Syrian air force may have dropped chlorine bombs and the OPCW are going to investigate. A more likely story is that the SAF dropped bombs on a rebel chlorine bomb factory lol.

Random note: If the Syrian air force really drop barrel bombs out of helicopters as much as CNN/etc claim, they why don't the rebels just shoot down the helicopters with their stinger missiles like they did the Russian rescue chopper looking for the pilots of the fighter bomber that Turkey shot down?

Link your source or stop spouting apologist nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

At least he understands the consequences of what would happen if Assad is removed.
Once again, a DOG learns from its mistakes. If a dog gets burned near the fireplace, it won't stuck its nose in there again.
You, however, do not. Hellbent on repeating the same mistake we did in Iraq and Libya.
Curios.

One day you'll figure out that Syria is not Libya. I'll give you a lesson on implied meaning: if you bring up elections in a discussion, you're implying democracy, or the illusion of one exists.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering you claim to understand the topic it's surprising you didn't know that.

1: It is secular, people are (or were) free to follow any religion they like, this is something that ISIS and the "rebel" extremists are fighting to stop. And not just that but other middle eastern countries like US allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar have in the past condemned Assad for Syria being too secular and for women having too many rights (currently it's fine for them to go to university dressed like they are attending a baseball game, if the ISIS/"rebel" extremists have their way then women will be wearing Burkas when not forced to stay in the house.

2: The parliament and the president are both elected (and even Syria's enemies like the aforementioned Qatar don't have an issue with their elections). Hell the only election you could really try and question is the most recent one as it took place during a war, but then if some people are too busy chopping up Christians/Jews to go vote that's hardly the states fault.

Secular government is separation of church and state, not religious pluralism. By those standards Iran is secular (lmao). Syria was an alawite minority ruling over Sunnis and Christians for the entire time Assad has ruled. That's not a secular government.

[caervek]

Secular government is-

"A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion."

Just like Syria. A country condemned by many Islamic states for it's secularism, freedom of religion, women's rights, westernisation, etc.

[Flarelaine]

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article...st-rebels-did/

BTW if you google it you can actually find pictures of rebels posing with chemical weapons, they are about as smart as the Ukrainian rebels who uploaded pictures of their new Buks to twitter a fortnight before MH-17 went down lol.

You quoted an article that claims:

"The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has confirmed the traces of the sarin gas used in Syria are not linked with the Syrian government's former stockpile of chemical weapons. The report corroborates the Syrian government's assertions that the faction responsible for the chemical attack, as well as 11 other instances of chemical weapons use, was the Syrian opposition."

However, I went to check OPCW's own site. They are nice people, they have a separate section for press releases and within it, a section for Syria.

I have not found one that said what your link said they would.

https://www.opcw.org/news/article/st...use-in-aleppo/

https://www.opcw.org/news/article/st...-use-in-syria/

https://www.opcw.org/news/article/de...ons-completed/

Of course, I may have overlooked just the one, could you point me to it?

[Deleted]

Link your source or stop spouting apologist nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -



One day you'll figure out that Syria is not Libya. I'll give you a lesson on implied meaning: if you bring up elections in a discussion, you're implying democracy, or the illusion of one exists.

- - - Updated - - -



Secular government is separation of church and state, not religious pluralism. By those standards Iran is secular (lmao). Syria was an alawite minority ruling over Sunnis and Christians for the entire time Assad has ruled. That's not a secular government.

So you're ACTUALLY willing to destroy yet another country?
Curios, I wonder why you'd want to do that.

You're actually going to argue against Syrian secularism which is a very well known and interesting development of their society. Obviously you are, considering how ignorant you are about the whole topic.
Religious groups did not have the possibility to be represented in politics, in Syria. Weird isnt it?

- - - Updated - - -

"A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion."

Just like Syria. A country condemned by many Islamic states for it's secularism, freedom of religion, women's rights, westernisation, etc.

A country in the middle east couldn't ever be secular Caervek. What are you talking about come on. Surely, a secular alternative to islamic states, born locally out of local people and with the potential of creating modern states, would be supported by the west right?

[caervek]

A country in the middle east couldn't ever be secular Caervek. What are you talking about come on. Surely, a secular alternative to islamic states, born locally out of local people and with the potential of creating modern states, would be supported by the west right?

You would think so but apparently all the US/etc seem to care about is if a country is their ally or not, not how that country conducts it's business.

[JohnBrown1917]

Fuck helping people who fucked themselves.

Why do you have such a big problem with a charity helping people? Your not involved.

[TheFuse]

Why do you have such a big problem with a charity helping people? Your not involved.

Because it's resources being wasted on people who can't and will not use them effectively. Time, money, human lives, being thrown into the trash because some people decided to let their country go to shit and only started to realize they fucked up. Let them rot, spend the resources on 1st world countries where the efforts won't be in vain. When the shit dwellers are dead we can shake out the debris and use their lands for the betterment of mankind, but as it stands they're just resource sponges.

[Deleted]

Because it's resources being wasted on people who can't and will not use them effectively. Time, money, human lives, being thrown into the trash because some people decided to let their country go to shit and only started to realize they fucked up. Let them rot, spend the resources on 1st world countries where the efforts won't be in vain. When the shit dwellers are dead we can shake out the debris and use their lands for the betterment of mankind, but as it stands they're just resource sponges.

What a lovely person.
Allow let me write a pattern down.
You start from total ignorance (you dont know what happened in Syria and you blame the people for it), heading towards fields of intolerance (theyre just resource sponged, lol... Syrians?), going through total lack of humanity (they're trash and need to die).
What a fine example of the failures of modern society.
Everything combined into one.

[JohnBrown1917]

Because it's resources being wasted on people who can't and will not use them effectively. Time, money, human lives, being thrown into the trash because some people decided to let their country go to shit and only started to realize they fucked up. Let them rot, spend the resources on 1st world countries where the efforts won't be in vain. When the shit dwellers are dead we can shake out the debris and use their lands for the betterment of mankind, but as it stands they're just resource sponges.

Ill repeat it for you.



Its a charity, its not your fucking money, its made up of volunteers. What makes you so special to decide how people use their own time & money?

[TheFuse]

Ill repeat it for you.



Its a charity, its not your fucking money, its made up of volunteers. What makes you so special to decide how people use their own time & money?

I'm not deciding anything, I'm stating my opinion that those people don't deserve the help they're getting. People are throwing away lives and resources to animals is fine, it's their business, but I can still think it's wastefull.

[Deleted]

I'm not deciding anything, I'm stating my opinion that those people don't deserve the help they're getting. People are throwing away lives and resources to animals is fine, it's their business, but I can still think it's wastefull.

Your opinion is laughable. Or should I say it WOULD be laughable, if only it wasn't so depressingly sad.

[Deleted]

Link your source or stop spouting apologist nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -



One day you'll figure out that Syria is not Libya. I'll give you a lesson on implied meaning: if you bring up elections in a discussion, you're implying democracy, or the illusion of one exists.

- - - Updated - - -



Secular government is separation of church and state, not religious pluralism. By those standards Iran is secular (lmao). Syria was an alawite minority ruling over Sunnis and Christians for the entire time Assad has ruled. That's not a secular government.

So the solution is to completely destroy the whole country? Genious. Just answer me who will take over after Assad. Who will rebuild the country? What's not to say he will be even worse? Will another war be needed then? And besides, we all know what will happen. A power vaccum which will turn the whole country into a shithole and only prolong the conflict. Also, Syria was one of the most secualr states in the ME.

[downnola]

"A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion."

Just like Syria. A country condemned by many Islamic states for it's secularism, freedom of religion, women's rights, westernisation, etc.

I'll say it again: Syria has never been neutral when it comes to religion. I've listed a few ways earlier in the thread how it used and still uses sectarianism. If you want further examples how it's not and never has been secular then take a look into its laws.

[Skroe]

I agree 100% on all counts. I've been saying for years to those who believe we can advance ourselves through the force of our good intentions, when someone decides you're their enemy, you don't get a vote in the matter. You just seemed particularly emotional about the Russians which is why I asked. The way i see it, Russia and China are regional powers using the means available to them to advance their interests. That is what countries should do. It's not their fault we've become a bunch of feckless weenies. They'd be insane not to try and take advantage of it. All that being said, you can thank the oil and gas Industry President Obama opposed at every turn for taking Moscow's primary source of income away from them. Russia is in a financial shitstorm right now.

It's because this US/Western-Russian collision encapsulates a lot of things I feel strongly about.

(1) How the US conducts it's foreign policy at a philosophical level (my post you replied to for details on how I feel on that.

(2) NATO.
I've believed NATO is the most important forum for multinational cooperation in the world. It is the prototype of the concept of a Global Alliance of Democracies whose time is approaching. The alliance between the US and it's western brothers and sisters is natural and a cornerstone of the West' ability to set the order of the world. NATO, even when it isn't working right, is an idea worth worth fighting for. Russia is directly confronting and trying to counter NATO.

(3) John Kerry
John Kerry is a piece of garbage. Unique among politicians, he's trash. People from Massachusetts generally know this. He barely lived in the state for decades. When he ran for re-election, it was mostly unopposed because the Republican Party in this state rarely puts up viable candidates for Senator (preferring to make the talent Governor, which is generally pretty sucessful, as we have a very good Republican governor now). While Ted Kennedy spent his career doing a tremendous amount for this State and the country, John Kerry spent his Senate career mostly using his position to advance his reputation and stature.

John Kerry is a man who validates himself through accolades and notarized achievement. Titles, rank and recognition are how he lives his life. He married a Heinz. As Senator, he kept reaching for positions to hold on various comittees and when he achieved them, did remarkably little with them. As Secretary of State, his first order of business was to spend 14 months basically trying to resolve the Israeli / Palestinian dispute in a permanent fashion, despite the fact that neither side was ready for any kind of final agreement. Why did he do this? Because he wants a Nobel Peace Prize. He did it again with Iran. And again with Syria most recently. John Kerry has consistently outsourced the larger, more meaningful strategic threats to the US - in the South China Sea and Eastern Europe and Cyberspace - to his subordinates. Because there is no Nobel Peace Prize in resolving the SCS, or fortifying Europe against Russian aggression, or defining norms of cyber-behavior between nation states.

Reviews from his peers around the world have been terrible. He pretty much tries to talk people to submission. He has a very high opinion of his opinions. And per (1), he is convinced that nations can come to mutally satisfying outcomes. As opposed to the first term alliance between Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton, which were the adults in the room, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has spent most of his tenure (beyond the very important job of modernization) making sure John Kerry doesn't put the US military in a stupid position, like he nearly did in Syria in the last two weeks.

I've thought John Kerry a piece of garbage since 2002 when he forgot to run for re-election, but won re-election anyway. He didn't run so much as one newspaper ad. He spent much of the 2000s confirming that position. His only saving grace is that as Obama's third choice for his second Secretary of State (Susan Rice was blocked, the second person declined) took him out of the Senate and in a few months he'll be in retirement.

The nominal head of our foreign policy (the real head is Susan Rice, who just believes crazy shit and is seriously disliked by her foreign counterparts) has basically left US foreign policy rudderless the past four years. When you cut through it, John Kerry has just been terrible at his last two jobs.

(4) Barack Obama
I very nearly voted for John McCain in 2008. I know Obama's typed. I had him figured from day one. He's a Harvard guy. Hugely inflated sense of self importance. Moralizing by inclination. Highly ideological. And slick. Slick as slick can be. Letting a slick son of a bitch like Obama into office was something I had huge reservations about.

Furthermore I knew what it meant. McCain promised a foreign and defense policy that I was more inclined to agree with. I respect Veterans more than I do people like Obama, who are deeply suspicious of the military and treats service members as victims. I knew, should Obama be elected, it was unlikely that Project Constellation, a NASA program I cared a lot about, would be continued.

But I voted for him anyway because Republicans were deeply irresponsible voting against TARP the first time, despite Bush and the Treasury and the Fed pushing it with the help of Democrats. When your house is on fire and it threatens to burn down the neighborhood, taking a principled stand against "big government" firefighting is unacceptable. Republicans deserved to be punished severely for that vote. In a time of Crisis, pragmatism and triage rule. Small Government principles are for fine tuning later.

True enough Obama slashed military spending (by basically lying to Robert Gates face). He tried (and failed) to end manned space exploration entirely. His foreign policy was largely fine the first term when adults were in the room to moderate his liberal advisers, but an historic disaster the second term because all the adults quit. Rather than focus on a major jobs program in 2009, he decided to force through Obamacare in the single most destructive and divisive way possible, setting up years of distrust with Congress. Foolishly, I voted to reward him with a second term, largely because of Mitt Romney, my former governor, saying two things - the 47% comment, and saying he would reject a deal with Democrats that offered $10 of cuts for $1 of tax increases. Foolish to the extreme.


Barack Obama's first term had serious missteps that were mitigated by luck, but was passable given the options. His second term has been a disaster of astonishing propotions. "A joke" doesn't even begin to describe it. When I read the other week, he was considering a list of unilateral nuclear weapons cuts (since abandoned), I couldn't help but laugh. The list was ridiculous. It wasn't going to be done in conjunction with a deal with Russia or China (which is the way to do it). All of his advisers, even the ones that normally are at odds, thought it was a terrible idea. But Barry O wanted "a nuclear legacy". That is where we are. Where Presidents gut the US's strategic power and barganing power to erect a morally consistent monument to themselves. Fortunately it looks like it isn't going to happen at all, but even still, it just illustrates the bizarre thoughts that live inside Obama's head.

I'm passionate about it because the corrective action is so damn obvious. It's to elect a John McCain or Mitt Romney figure who is in so many ways a rejection of Barack Obama. Instead we get Donald Trump, an entirely unqualified racist, authoritarian, fascist, illiberal friend to Vladmir Putin who can never be allowed to be President. Instead we get Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, Obama's ex-Secretary of State, who is the closest thing to John McCain or Mitt Romney amazingly enough. But she has a huge amount of her own baggage, not the least of which is her husband, Five Star Bullshit Artist Bill Clinton.


Our problems stem from our leaders. We have a leadership deficit. And sadly the only way through it is through a Clinton. It is simply so mindboggling obvious what to do in our biggest challenges - with China, with Russia, with Syria, with terrorism, with Climate change, with cyberwarfare - but with it requires is a President who is not ideologically bound to a particular world view but dynamic enough to offer our opponents a moving target. Obama's biggest failure is that everyone has his number and no government in the world fears or respects him enough to alter their policies with respect to that. "Wildcard" Donald Trump isn't the right answer. But neither is another 4 years of what we got in Obama - a President that every world leader knows would rather be Prime Minister of New Zealand and mostly talk about social welfare.

[Deleted]

I'll say it again: Syria has never been neutral when it comes to religion. I've listed a few ways earlier in the thread how it used and still uses sectarianism. If you want further examples how it's not and never has been secular then take a look into its laws.

Today on mmochamp: downnola vs Syrian secularism
Let's see... some random dude that can hardly point Syria on a world map, or:

The process of secularization in Syria began under the French mandate in the 1920s and went on continuously under different governments since the independence. Syria has been governed by the Arab nationalist Baath Party since 1963. The Baath regime combined Arab Socialism with secular ideology and an authoritarian political system. The constitution guarantees religious freedom for every recognized religious communities, including many Christian denominations. All schools are government-run and non-sectarian, although there is mandatory religious instruction, provided in Islam and/or Christianity. Political forms of Islam are not tolerated by the government. The Syrian legal system is primarily based on civil law, and was heavily influenced by the period of French rule. It is also drawn in part from Egyptian law of Abdel Nasser, quite from the Ottoman Millet system and very little from Sharia. Syria has separate secular and religious courts. Civil and criminal cases are heard in secular courts, while the Sharia courts handle personal, family, and religious matters in cases between Muslims or between Muslims and non-Muslims.[1] Non-Muslim communities have their own religious courts using their own religious law.[2]

Who to trust.... mmmh.

[downnola]

Your own link disproves your point. I'll say it again, you don't know what secularism is.

[TheFuse]

Your opinion is laughable. Or should I say it WOULD be laughable, if only it wasn't so depressingly sad.

You think my opinion is laughable, I think you'd make a great MMO-C mod. Opinions are funny like that.

[Deleted]

Your own link disproves your point. I'll say it again, you don't know what secularism is.

Like convincing my cat to get out.

- - - Updated - - -

You think my opinion is laughable, I think you'd make a great MMO-C mod. Opinions are funny like that.

Oh you even dare talking about your post? God you know no shame don't you.

[Independent voter]

Your own link disproves your point. I'll say it again, you don't know what secularism is.

Djal doesn't know what most things are, it's never stopped him.