Leaders of world powers meet to discuss Syria

[Lexicus]

Was Lincoln a mass murderer because some civilians certainly died in the civil war?

Dude, Lincoln didn't start that war. Assad did start this one.

Sometimes they can't be avoided, unfortunately,

And you're suggesting this war couldn't have been avoided?

 

[red_elk]

A three-sided handshake looks kinda awkward.

As for Syria participation, Assad wasn't invited most likely because Turkey still opposes him. Obviously, Iran and Russia wouldn't mind his participation. Also things not related to Syria were discussed in the meeting, such as Russian weapons trade with Turkey and the nuclear power station project.

 

[innonimatu]

Dude, Lincoln didn't start that war. Assad did start this one.

Really? The way I see it: rebels. They renounce authority from the government and grab weapons. Some military and even officers defect to the rebel side. Then (in the US Civil war case) someone starts shooting, claiming that the government must be expelled from some place it holds. The government refuses to leave and starts shooting back. What civil wars have not been like this? There are always rebels capable and willing to shoot, and a government capable and willing to shoot, otherwsie there wouldn't be a war.

So Lincoln showed more "restraint" that Assad, in that he didn't shoot first? Allegedly "Assad" did, the syrian government holds otherwise (that the protesters had weapons and were using them) and who am I to know, not having been there? The protestes certainly did "found" plenty of weapons immediately after. Propaganda abounded as usual in such occasions and journalists in the rebel areas seemed to meet untimely deaths and it wasn't from government bombs.

And you're suggesting this war couldn't have been avoided?

Someone encouraged those rebels, supplied them weapons, and kept the war going. It might have been a massacre, though a limited one as rulers usually don't want to wreck their own country any more than necessary. Instead it was a fully fledged civil war. Yes, the war could have been avoided. And the syrians would probably have been better off, and closer to "freedom" than they are now.

 

[red_elk]

Dude, Lincoln didn't start that war. Assad did start this one.

Civil wars pretty much always have more than one side responsible for their start.

 

[Zkribbler]

Leaders of Iran, Turkey and Russia met to lay out the future for Syria. Participation by "the one superpower" was deemed to be unnecessary.

I thought by "making America great again," Trump meant he'd take us back to the 1950's. Instead, he meant to the 1850's.

 

[Zkribbler]

Allegedly "Assad" did, the syrian government holds otherwise (that the protesters had weapons and were using them) and who am I to know, not having been there? The protesters certainly did "found" plenty of weapons immediately after.

In the first three or four protests, ALL the casualties were with the protestors because they had no weapons. It wasn't until soldiers became disgusted at being ordered to shoot peaceful and unarmed civilians that they began defecting and bringing their weapons with them.
that the FSA was formed and began shooting back.

 

[innonimatu]

In the first three or four protests, ALL the casualties were with the protestors because they had no weapons. It wasn't until soldiers became disgusted at being ordered to shoot peaceful and unarmed civilians that they began defecting and bringing their weapons with them.
that the FSA was formed and began shooting back.

And who exactly told you that and vouched for it? What evidence of that is there and what was its chain of custody until it was published? Why should I trust it more than I should trust the Syrian government (not at all)?

Do you recall the "maidan protests" in Ukraine? The shooting by snipers, blamed by all media on the ukranian government? Go read up on what has emerged since then, even despite the coup having succeeded. Who actually did the shooting, and who was shot at there, do you think we now can say with certainty? And that the media reports were correct back then and their sources trustworthy?

 

[inthesomeday]

There, I can't agree. ISIS, as horrible as they are, aren't leveling cities with indiscriminate bombardment with aircraft and heavy artillery.

Is your take that Assad is actually worse than ISIS? I’ve not heard that one before.

I mean, I agree that without the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan it's highly unlikely that ISIS would exist. Whether something like it would exist is another question.

Go back a bit further than the 21st century. The instability in the Middle East is more or less solely the fault of the US, perhaps with blame to be extended to its allies and satellites (England, France, Saudis, Israel, Saddam) and I guess a bit to Khomeini.

 

[red_elk]

In the first three or four protests, ALL the casualties were with the protestors because they had no weapons.

That wasn't in Syria, you are confusing it with pro-Russian protests in Eastern Ukraine. There indeed were several cases where unarmed protesters were shot by Kievan regime soldiers.
One in Mariupol, another in Pervomayskoe, if I remember correctly.

 

[Zkribbler]

And who exactly told you that and vouched for it? What evidence of that is there and what was its chain of custody until it was published? Why should I trust it more than I should trust the Syrian government (not at all)?

Network news media on site. (I don't remember the network.)

 

[Zkribbler]

That wasn't in Syria, you are confusing it with pro-Russian protests in Eastern Ukraine.

It was indeed in Syria.

 

[Lexicus]

Is your take that Assad is actually worse than ISIS? I’ve not heard that one before.

Assad is causing significantly more harm than ISIS. I don't know about "worse than," the only reason ISIS is not causing more harm is because they lack the means to do so.

Go back a bit further than the 21st century. The instability in the Middle East is more or less solely the fault of the US, perhaps with blame to be extended to its allies and satellites (England, France, Saudis, Israel, Saddam) and I guess a bit to Khomeini.

I mean, I don't disagree with you but it isn't really relevant to my point that Russia, Iran, and Turkey are every bit as "imperialist" as the US and its allies when it comes to Syria. Incidentally, the USSR certainly had a hand in messing up the Middle East and Russia isn't exactly blameless wrt the Syrian civil war.

 

[r16]

In the first three or four protests, ALL the casualties were with the protestors because they had no weapons. It wasn't until soldiers became disgusted at being ordered to shoot peaceful and unarmed civilians that they began defecting and bringing their weapons with them.
that the FSA was formed and began shooting back.

people have bragged on Turkish TVs that they were with the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in Syria and for 6 months all the affairs were "unarmed" and irresuction started after 6000 deaths . Every Friday was a Friday of something and there are a lot of Fridays in 6 months . Solely taken up by the affairs of Libya , when Sarkozy ran out of bombs in two or 4 days and had to call in America . The President was the spineless jerk and had to look interested in Pasific so that glorious Arabs could win victories to convince the 'ing Turks give up resisting . Yeah , typically confusing .

 

[FriendlyFire]

I'm glad we're not included, maybe we finally caught sight of the exit

John Bolton to the rescue !