Syrian war thread - Page 201 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
By skinster
#15107973
wat0n wrote:I guess that's why the war is still ongoing, because "practically every family has someone conscripted" even in areas outside the control of the Syrian Government :lol:


Not sure what you're talking about here, my point is the Syrian government imposed conscription during the war and therefore it would make no sense that Syrians would prioritise attacking their own while fighting against mercenaries a) at all and b) with chemical weapons.

Unless of course Alawites are the only Syrians who matter to you. Because, yes, they have brunt the bulk of the burden.


I'm not sectarian, the jihadi groups like Al-Nusra that you're shilling for, are. And the Syrian government and army includes people from practically every sect in Syria. They were fighting sectarianism from the jihadis who put Alawites in cages and displayed them around town as if they were animals worthy of shaming and killing.

And no, they're not the sect that's had the bulk of burden, that would be Sunnis.

Again, you are still somehow pretending planes and helicopters are incapable of delivering chemical attacks :lol:


As I said, it's easy to believe anything you like. Presenting facts is what proves whatever it is you're claiming, but you have none.

No, with chemical weapons they claim not to have. And the threats? Obama didn't follow up with those.


You'd have to prove the Syrians had chemical weapons and they used them. So far that hasn't happened. You didn't with JohnRawls or me or anyone else who would ask, because facts are not on your side.

As for Obama not going further with his intervention and disgusting war on Syria, I'm sure that upset you. Too bad.

Logic is far from being your strong suit here, snowflake :lol:


And then the name-calling begins. :lol:

You might want to reduce those when honing your skills of arguing, since ad-homs aren't an argument and make you look silly.
By wat0n
#15107977
skinster wrote:Not sure what you're talking about here, my point is the Syrian government imposed conscription during the war and therefore it would make no sense that Syrians would prioritise attacking their own while fighting against mercenaries a) at all and b) with chemical weapons.


How can the Syrian government impose conscription in areas it doesn't control?

skinster wrote:I'm not sectarian, the jihadi groups like Al-Nusra that you're shilling for, are.


Projecting much?

skinster wrote:And the Syrian government and army includes people from practically every sect in Syria. They were fighting sectarianism from the jihadis who put Alawites in cages and displayed them around town as if they were animals worthy of shaming and killing.

And no, they're not the sect that's had the bulk of burden, that would be Sunnis.


Alawites have born the brunt of the burden among the SAA, which makes sense since the conflict is sectarian whether you like it or not. And I also understand why they may be willing to do whatever it takes to come on top, since Alawites were among the most discriminated Arab populations in Syria before the Assads got to power.

skinster wrote:As I said, it's easy to believe anything you like. Presenting facts is what proves whatever it is you're claiming, but you have none.


I know right? You can indeed believe whatever you like, including your own nonsense.

skinster wrote:You'd have to prove the Syrians had chemical weapons and they used them. So far that hasn't happened. You didn't with JohnRawls or me or anyone else who would ask, because facts are not on your side.

As for Obama not going further with his intervention and disgusting war on Syria, I'm sure that upset you. Too bad.


So far you have only thrown a red herring (Douma) into the mix, with no comment on the actual attacks in the OCPW's report to the UN - the very same UN you are so keen to believe in when it suits you.

skinster wrote:And then the name-calling begins. :lol:

You might want to reduce those when honing your skills of arguing, since ad-homs aren't an argument and make you look silly.


I know right? They make you look silly hence you should stop using them so often when you get mad, and then get even more mad when you get called about it, snowflake.

And I love honing my skills since it pisses you off :D
By skinster
#15107986
wat0n wrote:How can the Syrian government impose conscription in areas it doesn't control?


When did I say it did?

Projecting much?


No, because your arguments are defending the jihadist groups who are sectarian and my arguments are defending the Syrian people and army, who are not.

Alawites have born the brunt of the burden among the SAA, which makes sense since the conflict is sectarian whether you like it or not. And I also understand why they may be willing to do whatever it takes to come on top, since Alawites were among the most discriminated Arab populations in Syria before the Assads got to power.


Sunnis are the majority in Syria, comprising around 70% of the population, who have lost the most people. Alawites are the minority, about 10% of the population. The army includes people from all Syrian sects, with the majority being Sunni. And the army includes people from practically every of the 7 sects within the country. These various sects, together, fought and are continue to fight against the Jihadis who ARE sectarian, you know, the people you're defending here.

I know right? They make you look silly hence you should stop using them so often when you get mad, and then get even more mad when you get called about it, snowflake.

And I love honing my skills since it pisses you off :D


:lol:
By wat0n
#15107989
skinster wrote:When did I say it did?


You have been claiming everyone in Syria is being conscripted. That is not true since there are areas the SAA hasn't been able to exert control over, hence why this is a civil war to begin with.

skinster wrote:No, because your arguments are defending the jihadist groups who are sectarian and my arguments are defending the government which is not.


What part of "both the SAA and ISIL have carried out attacks using chemical weapons according to the OPCW" is a defense of the jihadists? :eh:

And the Government is in fact sectarian, just not fundamentalist and not nearly as much as jihadists are.

skinster wrote:Sunnis are the majority in Syria, comprising around 70% of the population, who have lost the most people. Alawites are the minority, about 10% of the population. The army includes people from all Syrian sects, with the majority being Sunni. And the army includes people from practically every of the 7 sects within the country. These various sects, together, fought against the Jihadis who ARE sectarian, you know, the people you're defending here.


And many of those Sunnis have been killed by the Syrian Government itself, over the course of the war since it is... Well, it's a war. And of course the Army includes part of a minority of Sunnis who have been supporting it.

skinster wrote: :lol:


:lol:
By skinster
#15107998
wat0n wrote:You have been claiming everyone in Syria is being conscripted.


Practically every family in Syria had conscription imposed upon them.

That is not true since there are areas the SAA hasn't been able to exert control over, hence why this is a civil war to begin with.


Well, duh. That should be obvious to anyone but thanks for pointing it out.

And no, it wasn't a civil war. It was a proxy war.

What part of "both the SAA and ISIL have carried out attacks using chemical weapons according to the OPCW" is a defense of the jihadists? :eh:


Your theme throughout has been opposition to the Syrian government. Which places you on the side of Jihadists. By claiming the SAA attacked their own people with chemical weapons when it's obvious who did at this stage, you're defending your frands, the Jihadists.

And the Government is in fact sectarian


No, it isn't.

And many of those Sunnis have been killed by the Syrian Government itself, over the course of the war since it is... Well, it's a war. And of course the Army includes part of a minority of Sunnis who have been supporting it.


The vast majority within the SAA are Sunnis. You keep revealing how little you know.
By wat0n
#15108001
skinster wrote:Practically every family in Syria had conscription imposed upon them.


Clearly not the ones who aren't under SAA control :|

skinster wrote:Well, duh. That should be obvious to anyone but thanks for pointing it out.

And no, it wasn't a civil war. It was a proxy war.


Both descriptions fit.

skinster wrote:Your theme throughout has been opposition to the Syrian government. Which places you on the side of Jihadists. By claiming the SAA attacked their own people with chemical weapons when it's obvious who did at this stage, you're defending your frands, the Jihadists.


I also quoted the OPCW's letter on the ISIL attack. But hey, I guess guilt by association is easier and even the UN is a jihadist organization now :lol:

skinster wrote:No, it isn't.


:lol:

skinster wrote:The vast majority within the SAA are Sunnis. You keep revealing how little you know.


But the majority of Sunnis does not support the Government, and the ones who have born the brunt of having relatives killed fighting for Assad have been those from his own minority, which makes perfect sense since the war is a war to the death (it's also why actors show no qualms in deliberately attacking civilians, even with chemical weapons).
By skinster
#15108006
wat0n wrote:Clearly not the ones who aren't under SAA control :|


I don't know why you keep repeating this obvious fact that I'm not arguing against.

Both descriptions fit.


Not anymore. Once upon a time it was considered a civil war. We learned later it was a war from various countries - U.S., U.K., France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, Jordan and Syria's Muslim Brotherhood - imposed on Syria. If it was a civil war, Syria would've lost the war.

I guess guilt by association is easier and even the UN is a jihadist organization now :lol:


Pretty much, since they were on the side of the Jihadists. Just like the governments I mentioned above.

But the majority of Sunnis does not support the Government, and the ones who have born the brunt of having relatives killed fighting for Assad have been those from his own minority


Actually, the majority of Sunnis do support their government, otherwise they would defect to the mercenaries fighting against the government. Alawites cannot bear the largest burden of casualties in the war because they're about 10% of the population. Not that Shia and Sunni Syrians have been taking part in this popularity death contest that you're making up, since most Syrians see themselves as Syrians before whatever sect they are.
By wat0n
#15108009
skinster wrote:I don't know why you keep repeating this obvious fact that I'm not arguing against.


Because it's a way to deny the reality on the ground, namely, that the Syrian Government doesn't actually govern much of the country.

skinster wrote:Not anymore. Once upon a time it was considered a civil war. We learned later it was a war from various countries - U.S., U.K., France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, Jordan and Syria's Muslim Brotherhood - imposed on Syria. If it was a civil war, Syria would've lost the war.


Since when do civil wars not include proxy warring? The Spanish Civil War was also a proxy war, but we still regard it for what it is.

skinster wrote:Pretty much, since they were on the side of the Jihadists. Just like the governments I mentioned above.


:lol:

skinster wrote:Actually, the majority of Sunnis do support their government, otherwise they would defect to the mercenaries fighting against the government. Alawites cannot bear the largest burden of casualties in the war because they're about 10% of the population. Not that Shia and Sunni Syrians have been taking part in this popularity death contest that you're making up, since most Syrians see themselves as Syrians before whatever sect they are.


They don't defect anymore because the SAA has been able to get plenty of Russian and Iranian support on the ground to hold out. But they did do so at the beginning of the war.
By skinster
#15108053




wat0n wrote:Because it's a way to deny the reality on the ground, namely, that the Syrian Government doesn't actually govern much of the country.


I was responding to your incredibly smart and obvious point that the SAA doesn't have conscription in Jihadi-infested areas, thanks again for stating this obvious fact that nobody argued against.

Not that you've changed topic, as is your way, SAA liberated much of its land throughout the war. Sure, there is still some areas under ISIL control, including the north of the country that the Turks are occupying. And then in the South, which JSIL are occupying.

You need to hone your argument skills insofar as staying on topic rather than switching constantly from one thought to another in every post. 2/10 for that.

Since when do civil wars not include proxy warring? The Spanish Civil War was also a proxy war, but we still regard it for what it is.


What took place in Syria wasn't a civil war.

They don't defect anymore because the SAA has been able to get plenty of Russian and Iranian support on the ground to hold out. But they did do so at the beginning of the war.


Syrian military and government members could defect throughout the war, including today. And yes, there were members of both groups defecting at the beginning. Thanks for again pointing out something nobody is arguing against, switching to a different topic while ignoring your and my points about how there isn't sectarianism in the army or amongst Syrians in general, like you claim. That'd be weird since they were and continue to fight sectarianism, of the Islamist variety.

You need to work on continuing debates with what I say, rather than arguing things nobody is arguing against. Hone that skill, if you're sincere on learning how to argue better, which apparently is your purpose for being here. No, you don't need to thank me for this free advice.
By wat0n
#15108055
skinster wrote:I was responding to your incredibly smart and obvious point that the SAA doesn't have conscription in Jihadi-infested areas, thanks again for stating this obvious fact that nobody argued against.


Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated since some people tend to forget that.

skinster wrote:Not that you've changed topic, as is your way, SAA liberated much of its land throughout the war. Sure, there is still some areas under ISIL control, including the north of the country that the Turks are occupying.


Owing to both direct and indirect Russian and Iranian intervention to that effect. But I guess you have no issues with that sort of interference in Syrian affairs, heh?

skinster wrote:And then in the South, which JSIL are occupying.


Beautiful tears :lol:

skinster wrote:You need to hone your argument skills insofar as staying on topic rather than switching constantly from one thought to another in every post. 2/10 for that.


You mean how you have still not even addressed the attacks the OPCW blamed on the SAA in Talmenes and Sarmin in 2016? Yup, 2/10 skills there.

skinster wrote:What took place in Syria wasn't a civil war.


:lol:

skinster wrote:Syrian military and government members could defect throughout the war, including today. And yes, there were members of both groups defecting at the beginning. Thanks for again pointing out something nobody is arguing against, switching to a different topic while ignoring your and my points about how there isn't sectarianism in the army or amongst Syrians in general, like you claim. That'd be weird since they were and continue to fight sectarianism, of the Islamist variety.


Have you ever thought defections stopped precisely because they fear fighting Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah's troops along with the puppetized Syrian Government?

skinster wrote:You need to work on continuing debates with what I say, rather than arguing things nobody is arguing against. Hone that skill, if you're sincere on learning how to argue better, which apparently is your purpose for being here. No, you don't need to thank me for this free advice.


You could follow that advice yourself and finally comment on the allegations of a SAA attacks on Talmenes and Sarmin by the OPCW and the UN.
By skinster
#15108060
wat0n wrote:Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated since some people tend to forget that.


I didn't state the Syrian government imposes conscription in land occupied by the Islamists. You might have a point if I said something so absurd.

Owing to both direct and indirect Russian and Iranian intervention to that effect. But I guess you have no issues with that sort of interference in Syrian affairs, heh?


It's not "interference" (you mean imperialism) if a sovereign state asks its allies to help defend itself from imperialism. I suppose you've moved on from your claim that the Syrian govt hasn't liberated much of its land. You flip about a lot huh. I will keep pointing it out when you do to show what type of debater you are and in your attempt to argue better. Constructive criticism might help, you're welcome. :D

Beautiful tears :lol:


JSIL is a funny and fitting acronym for the Israelis, yes. :lol:

You mean how you have still not even addressed the attacks the OPCW blamed on the SAA in Talmenes and Sarmin in 2016? Yup, 2/10 skills there.


This has been addressed and you didn't prove the Syrians used chemical weapons in Idlib, the area that your Jihadi friends control.

Have you ever thought defections stopped precisely because they fear fighting Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah's troops along with the puppetized Syrian Government?


:lol:

You could follow that advice yourself and finally comment on the allegations of a SAA attacks on Talmenes and Sarmin by the OPCW and the UN.


The allegations weren't proven. Until they are, they're not worthy of addressing. And has been pointed out by a couple of us dealing with your nonsense, it would make no sense for the Syrians to attack their own people while fighting against the mercenaries that made war on the country. It was years when this stuff happened and it has not been proven that the SAA was responsible. Try harder in trying to use this argument for anything.

I guess you've moved on from your dumb claim that the Syrian army is sectarian. You do jump around a lot and your argumentative skills need much more work if you want to succeed. The repetition of allegations and lies - a trick we know well - does not make for facts. Good luck, you clearly need it.
By wat0n
#15108063
skinster wrote:I didn't state the Syrian government imposes conscription in land occupied by the Islamists. You might have a point if I said something so absurd.


It was implied in your post.

skinster wrote:It's not "interference" (you mean imperialism) if a sovereign state asks its allies to help defend itself from imperialism. I suppose you've moved on from your claim that the Syrian govt hasn't liberated much of its land. You flip about a lot huh. I will keep pointing it out when you do to show what type of debater you are and in your attempt to argue better. Constructive criticism might help, you're welcome. :D


You mean it's not imperialist to support a racist dictator who's physically eliminating the opposition to his rule? :lol: :lol: :lol:

skinster wrote:JSIL is a funny and fitting acronym for the Israelis, yes. :lol:


The tears from Twitter racists are indeed delicious, please continue :lol:

skinster wrote:This has been addressed and you didn't prove the Syrians used chemical weapons in Idlib, the area that your Jihadi friends control.


skinster wrote:The allegations weren't proven. Until they are, they're not worthy of addressing. And has been pointed out by a couple of us dealing with your nonsense, it would make no sense for the Syrians to attack their own people while fighting against the mercenaries that made war on the country. It was years when this stuff happened and it has not been proven that the SAA was responsible. Try harder in trying to use this argument for anything.

I guess you've moved on from your dumb claim that the Syrian army is sectarian. You do jump around a lot and your argumentative skills need much more work if you want to succeed. The repetition of allegations and lies - a trick we know well - does not make for facts. Good luck, you clearly need it.


No, you simply pretend that the OPCW didn't provide any evidence and use allegations regarding another attack to fuel this pretense and to deflect. Yet the OPCW workers never said that the OPCW's investigation on the attacks in Talmenes and Sarmin was botched, as far as I am aware. Do you have any sources on the matter?
By skinster
#15108069
wat0n wrote:It was implied in your post.


Which part of my post implied the Syrian government imposes conscription in areas controlled by its enemies? :lol:

You mean it's not imperialist to support a racist dictator who's physically eliminating the opposition to his rule? :lol: :lol: :lol:


I said sovereign states can invite allies to help defend itself against a war made on the country. You do suffer from sticking to words I say, looks like it's a compulsion.

The tears from Twitter racists are indeed delicious, please continue :lol:


JSIL is a brilliant and fitting acronym. There were no tears in the process of this acronym being made, but much laughter in fact.

No, you simply pretend that the OPCW didn't provide any evidence and use allegations regarding another attack to fuel this pretense and to deflect. Yet the OPCW workers never said that the OPCW's investigation on the attacks in Talmenes and Sarmin was botched, as far as I am aware. Do you have any sources on the matter?


Do you have any sources to these allegations the Syrian army used chemical weapons in these areas? Since you're the one claiming it.
By wat0n
#15108071
skinster wrote:Which part of my post implied the Syrian government imposes conscription in areas controlled by its enemies? :lol:


The part where you said that they impose it throughout Syria, duh. Unless you want to recognize the de-facto annexation of Idlib by Turkey.

skinster wrote:I said sovereign states can invite allies to help defend itself against a war made on the country. You do suffer from sticking to words I say, looks like it's a compulsion.


And I said that government is simply a dictatorship with little legitimacy beyond the bayonet.

skinster wrote:JSIL is a brilliant and fitting acronym. There were no tears in the process of this acronym being made, but much laughter in fact.


:lol:

skinster wrote:Do you have any sources to these allegations the Syrian army used chemical weapons in these areas? Since you're the one claiming it.


See? You are doing it again, pretending that the stuff you don't like was never posted. I even cited the OPCW's 2016 letter to the UN making those allegations :roll:
By skinster
#15108074
wat0n wrote:The part where you said that they impose it throughout Syria, duh. Unless you want to recognize the de-facto annexation of Idlib by Turkey.


I didn't say anything about throughout Syria. That would be a dumb thing to say or think considering there are areas controlled by mercenaries, i.e. not Syrian people. You should read harder.

And I said that government is simply a dictatorship with little legitimacy beyond the bayonet.


Your opinion is noted. World laws dictate sovereign states can invite allies to help them fight wars.

:lol:


This is exactly my reaction every time I read "JSIL" :D

See? You are doing it again, pretending that the stuff you don't like was never posted. I even cited the OPCW's 2016 letter to the UN making those allegations :roll:


No, I'm asking you to present evidence for these allegations. Something you cannot do because it doesn't exist.
By wat0n
#15108078
@skinster

Why don't you just read the evidence provided by the OPCW in its letter? You can also see further details on each incident on its appendix.

Now, if you prefer to disregard it because of its lack of prosecutorial powers, then I hope you do so for all similar reports by the UN.
Last edited by wat0n on 16 Jul 2020 23:52, edited 1 time in total.
By wat0n
#15108081
skinster wrote:There is only allegations.


Got Ninja'd. Is it because you agree they lack the prosecutorial capacity to that effect, just like the Goldstone report did?
  • 1
  • 199
  • 200
  • 201
  • 202
  • 203
  • 204
Arctic sea ice

The earth only has so much CO2. There can be no r[…]

if prices rise much in excess of value, then we[…]

This really took a long time. After this, they sh[…]

Rancid I will ignore the capitalism part. My hus[…]