Russia is sending attack helicopters to Syria or is it more US scare mongering

Originally Posted by coulson73

In war both sides are as bad as each other.

Agreed, and this is one reason why it bothers me the reporting on Syria that comes over extremely one-sided, even from (fairly) unbiased sources like the BBC. You don't have to read too far between the lines to see that most Middle East conflicts are on tribal or sectarian lines and quite frankly it is not believable that every single regime we don't like is run by a minority opporessing the majority. Though of course that panders to our "democratic" instincts of fair play.

What you get if you dig is that governments in that part of the world are generally run by bastards who run brutal security regimes to suppress other bastards, who would otherwise replace them with their own brutal rule and bastardry. The transition from one bastard ruler to another is generally very bloody, involves mass reprisals and infighting between cliques vying for power, and settles down to a rule of bastardry very much like its predecessor.

Why we are stupid enough to get involved in this is beyond me, more so since the bastards who seem to be getting into power as a result of the turmoil are largely radical Islamists with cause to hate us.

Originally Posted by Tomcat

as a result of the turmoil are largely radical Islamists with cause to hate us.

Ah but can you prove that




No seriously dont bother as I know and most everyone with half a brian knows its the truth aside from a few apologists

Originally Posted by Airtank

Ah but can you prove that

No seriously dont bother as I know and most everyone with half a brian knows its the truth aside from a few apologists

Where I think you go wrong is to equate Muslims with radical Islamists. Which is a bit like saying mice are small therefore everything that is small must be a mouse. In fact most Muslims are quite moderate and do not support terrorism.

The worry is when we are seen (or appear) to be invading or defiling Muslim countries or holy places because that creates a risk of polarising ordinary folk against us. In fact I'm convinced that was bin Laden's plan all along, he could never defeat the US but in provoking them he brought about a disproportionate retaliation which in turn has (or could have) caused a global Muslim backlash against them.

While this may not have happened to an overwhelming degree there do seem to be indications that in the Arab Spring the Islamists are seen as providing a uniting influence and some sort of purity of purpose, hence gaining support out of the chaos we have supported. Of course, that doesn't have to be a bad thing but as long as we persist in supporting Israel regardles of its deeds and keeping occupying troops in Muslim countries we needn't expect much support from the Islamists.

Originally Posted by Tomcat

Where I think you go wrong is to equate Muslims with radical Islamists. Which is a bit like saying mice are small therefore everything that is small must be a mouse. In fact most Muslims are quite moderate and do not support terrorism.

The worry is when we are seen (or appear) to be invading or defiling Muslim countries or holy places because that creates a risk of polarising ordinary folk against us. In fact I'm convinced that was bin Laden's plan all along, he could never defeat the US but in provoking them he brought about a disproportionate retaliation which in turn has (or could have) caused a global Muslim backlash against them.

While this may not have happened to an overwhelming degree there do seem to be indications that in the Arab Spring the Islamists are seen as providing a uniting influence and some sort of purity of purpose, hence gaining support out of the chaos we have supported. Of course, that doesn't have to be a bad thing but as long as we persist in supporting Israel regardles of its deeds and keeping occupying troops in Muslim countries we needn't expect much support from the Islamists.

Originally Posted by Tomcat

Agreed, and this is one reason why it bothers me the reporting on Syria that comes over extremely one-sided, even from (fairly) unbiased sources like the BBC. You don't have to read too far between the lines to see that most Middle East conflicts are on tribal or sectarian lines and quite frankly it is not believable that every single regime we don't like is run by a minority opporessing the majority. Though of course that panders to our "democratic" instincts of fair play.

What you get if you dig is that all governments in that part of the world are generally run by bastards who run brutal security regimes to suppress other bastards, who would otherwise replace them with their own brutal rule and bastardry. The transition from one bastard ruler to another is generally very bloody, involves mass reprisals and infighting between cliques vying for power, and settles down to a rule of bastardry very much like its predecessor.

Why we are stupid enough to get involved in this is beyond me, more so since the bastards who seem to be getting into power as a result of the turmoil are largely radical Islamists with cause to hate us.

Corrected with you ( with a hint of sacasam the leaving the other bits in )

The west is stupid enough to get involved because it thinks that they are the wrong people to have in power. Casing point from fairly recent history. The West backed Sadam...Look What happened there.
The West installed the Shah in Iran...well look at that country now.
The West rightly (imo) enabled the land of Israel to be created. But wrongly backed it to the hilt in everything that it has done so with Americas backing it can now do virtually what it wants, even if America doesn't like some of the things that it does do. However that wasn't helped by the Arabic countries who did not want Israel to exsit from the moment it was created and declared war on them from virtually the outset. Forcing the new country to defend itself from the outset.
(i am not defending Israel and everything that it just....just to be clear on that point.)

So looking back in history you would think that the West Would Learn. However would the West also be wrong to allow innocent people to be killed just because they were protesting about the regime? As it started out in the begining?

It's a tough call either way. The UN is the only real place to get this sorted, however with the way that it is set up, it will always be Russia and China against the rest. if Russia and china want to do something, then one of the other countries will more than likely block it. If the UK, America and European countries want to do soemthing, then the other 2 will more than likely block it.

It would be great if things weren't run on Family/Tribal/Religious lines in large parts of the world, but hey that's not going to happen. there will alway be civil wars, always be conflicts. Just the way Humans are unfortunately.
Maybe we can live in hope that it will work out fine. that they are decent people who will do the right thing. But maybe they will turn out to be as Airtank says they are...I just really hope he is wrong, but if he is right, then it is their country to sort out the mess.
As I have said previously though, as an Arabic Muslim country I bet that most of their laws are based on Sharia already anyway. It will just the the interpetation of it that will affect the way it will go.

Sorry ramblings of a man that has had little sleep after finishing night shifts.....

Originally Posted by coulson73

The UN is the only real place to get this sorted, however with the way that it is set up, it will always be Russia and China against the rest. if Russia and china want to do something, then one of the other countries will more than likely block it. If the UK, America and European countries want to do soemthing, then the other 2 will more than likely block it.

While putative interventions are based on who has first dibs on cheap and plentiful oil it will always be a game of international power politics. The Cold War may be dead but there are financial imperatives for control of the world's remaining resources, and the BRIC are determined not to be shut out of the game by the west. Russia and China are just better at it (and more established at the big boys table) than Brazil and India.

When the west starts talking about democracy and stability in Zimbabwe, Sudan or some other armpit of the world with no natural resources then you may see rather more equanimity.

Originally Posted by Tomcat

While putative interventions are based on who has first dibs on cheap and plentiful oil it will always be a game of international power politics. The Cold War may be dead but there are financial imperatives for control of the world's remaining resources, and the BRIC are determined not to be shut out of the game by the west. Russia and China are just better at it (and more established at the big boys table) than Brazil and India.

When the west starts talking about democracy and stability in Zimbabwe, Sudan or some other armpit of the world with no natural resources then you may see rather more equanimity.

For that I think that you need to look at a few other countries. Sudan...well Southern Sudan and possibly North have Black Gold. Zimbabwe has plenty of diamonds to be mined.

There are plenty of pleace the do need intervention and help, but as you say, these do not appear to have large amounts of natural resources to plunder.
It's a sad state of affairs when the only reason to get involved in a civil war to stop the abuses is the resources that they have. Only real one we did get involved in...albeit very much later than we should have done is in Bosnia etc.

And you have to wonder about that, maybe the echoes of WW1 and the flood of refugees into Europe got our attention....

Originally Posted by Tomcat

And you have to wonder about that, maybe the echoes of WW1 and the flood of refugees into Europe got our attention....

Agreed. It's only because it was on our doorstep that we got involved. The UN still fucked that one up as well though. Dutch Troops unable to stop the slaughter of civilians in their sight iirc

Hopefully with Syria, all sides will see sense and allow peacekeeping troops in to stop this carrying on much longer. But I very much doubt it

I don't think either side in Syria has much interest in a negotiated peace unfortunately.

And when all the wailing and gnashing of teeth comes from over here I wonder what HMG would do in the face of an armed uprising, would they roll over or would they meet force with equal (or greater) force? We're no saints.

Been watching a bit more of this pan out and the syrian government had to flee allepp as the rebels managed to overun it

Nothing was said in the media about this UNTIL the syrian government rallied and turned back into alleppo to begin hammering the rebels..... Cue international media crying foul on the syrian government and asking them to not attack ?

When the rebels do it nothing is said but when the syrian government do it ( attack that is ) theres a massive outcry .... fucking hypocritical bastards

Looks like the rebels have been led to a slaughter of their own making ....


Ban kee moon .... fuck off


http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0727/syria.html

Airtank

I've been following this ever since I started that thread - wherever it is? I don't agree with some of the things you say but I know for certain that the BBC has been 100% biased from day one. They keep having Jim Muir speaking from inside Lebanon - not Syria. You'd be forgiven if you thought he was speaking for the Free Liberation Army rather than being a neutral commentator.

I don't know the precise agenda of the West but it smells awfully like Iraq i.e. far too many factions being armed by far too many countries with their own agenda. I don't believe for a moment that all the civilian deaths are the responsibility of the Syrian government. Take a look at how many are being killed in Iraq on a weekly basis. Ah yes...the Sunnis and their extreme Salafi-jihadis pals. They have no interest in a democratic outcome for Syria.

I've no liking for Assad but if I was in his shoes I would attack the invading forces with everything I had.

The best thing that could happen to Britain would be for it to be removed from the U.N. Security Council. Given its size in relation to the development of other countries it is nothing more than a bad joke.

It may be a small thing but having thankfully managed to miss most of the Olympics opening ceremony last night I did catch the entry of some of the athletes, and was pleased to see that despite all the turmoil at home Syria had managed to field a squad. I was less pleased when the BBC commentator completely ignored them and continued prattling on anbout some Swiss bloke until the next team appeared.

If they are impartial I'm a Chinaman.

Originally Posted by Tomcat

It may be a small thing but having thankfully managed to miss most of the Olympics opening ceremony last night I did catch the entry of some of the athletes, and was pleased to see that despite all the turmoil at home Syria had managed to field a squad. I was less pleased when the BBC commentator completely ignored them and continued prattling on anbout some Swiss bloke until the next team appeared.

If they are impartial I'm a Chinaman.

I never noticed that ? did that actually happen and where can i get to see it as that sounds to me like the beeb need to be made to apologise to syria

That ship carrying the helis is back on its way but this time it has an escort of 6 russian ships one of them being a sub killer ... This time its personal eh

http://www.thecommentator.com/articl...ria?print=true

iplayer Airtank

F-forward

BBC Sport - iplayer - olympics

Originally Posted by KorkyKat

iplayer Airtank

F-forward

BBC Sport - iplayer - olympics

2:45 in and that was biased