Massive explosion rocks Damascus.

Well, what is anyone going to do about it?
 
Nothing apparently, since you know it's Israel.
 
Let me get this right: Israel has attacked Syria because it hopes to prevent arms falling into the hands of Hezbollah? Presumably possible because the Assad regime is on the point of collapse.

No. That's not right, is it? Iran supports Hezbollah, and both support Assad against the Syrian opposition, don't they? Or what? I'm confused.

edit: No that seems to be right. So why has Israel attacked Syrian arms supplies now? I don't see what's changed.

http://www.pri.org/stories/world/middle-east/hezbollah-declares-public-support-for-assad-s-ruling-syrian-regime-13699.html

Oho. Looks like another civil war looms in Lebanon.
 
Borachio said:
Presumably possible because the Assad regime is on the point of collapse.

I'm taking the opposite view. The regime is healthy enough that it can divert rockets it could be using against rebels now to Hezbollah. You don't do that if your collapsing.

Borachio said:
Oho. Looks like another civil war looms in Lebanon.
I'm not so sure. The Marionites are meant to be sympathetic towards Assad as well. Something about Al Qaida affiliates not liking Christians. The Druze are in much the same boat.

Kaiserguard said:
Iraqi Kurdistan is quite close to de-facto independence, in a fashion somewhat comparable to Macau or Hong Kong (excluding the circumstances in which those happened, of course). It is not quite unthinkable such may happen to Syria Kurdistan or the Syrian Alawites, though the latter may just as likely be marginalised.
Yeah, I suggested that was the most likely result in one of my earlier posts.
 
I'm taking the opposite view. The regime is healthy enough that it can divert rockets it could be using against rebels now to Hezbollah. You don't do that if your collapsing.
Mebbe. They're saying on the news now that Israel has intervened because the Syrian opposition has just taken a beating.
 
Others are saying that Israel may have attacked now to damage the opposition by giving them support.
 
but I thought red line means we have to instantly invade Syria on the side of the freedom fighters? What is this nonsense about complexity on the ground?
 
*shrug*

The whole thing is complex as hell.

Apparently the rebels might also be using sarin.
I don't think there is an "also" here. I think it was assumed it must have been the Syrian government who did it, instead of the other way around:

"But according to what we have established so far, it is at the moment opponents of the regime who are using sarin gas.

"This is not surprising since the opponents have been infiltrated by foreign fighters."

EDIT:

Carla Del Ponte 'stupefied by Syrian opposition sarin use'

She said her panel had not yet seen evidence of government forces using chemical weapons.
 
Hmmm, does that mean Obama is going to support the government now?
 
Others are saying that Israel may have attacked now to damage the opposition by giving them support.
I wouldn't like to say this isn't true, but if it is, what can usefully be said about anything?

Damaging the Syrians and so giving the opposition support? So supporting Assad by attacking him?

Why don't the IDF just shoot themselves in the foot? Cutting out the middle man.

If you're trying to confuse me, you will succeed. (I've tried cutting and pasting various words into the sentences above. None of them make sense.)
 
He means that the threat of an outside power on Syria especially an Isreali one, might spark nationalist sentiment and support for the regime in their fight against the Zionists.

I don't believe that but it's true Israel values stability on their border more than anything else and Assad has kept the border quite for quite some time. That of course doesn't take account of Assad's part in making the Lenanon border anything but quiet.
 
Dutch newspapers are reporting Assad forces are focussing on keeping the (Alawite?) coastal areas (and ethnically cleansing them?) and a corridor from Damascus to these coastal areas. This might be the first steps to the country falling apart into different pieces. Any thoughts on this analysis?
 
Makes sense to me. If Assad has worked out that the opposition have a real chance of keeping control in the east of Syria, then it makes sense to take steps to defend the mainly Alawite areas.

I've been getting the impression today, though, that the opposition isn't doing so well.

And Hezbollah have sided with Assad officially. I wasn't expecting that.
 
He means that the threat of an outside power on Syria especially an Isreali one, might spark nationalist sentiment and support for the regime in their fight against the Zionists.

I don't believe that but it's true Israel values stability on their border more than anything else and Assad has kept the border quite for quite some time. That of course doesn't take account of Assad's part in making the Lenanon border anything but quiet.

Im sure that the IDF took this into account when they planned the latest raids.


From Haaretz 31/01/2013

Syria's besieged Assad finds unlikely allies: Israel and an opposition leader
...

...
Up to now, Assad has contended that events in Syria are not related to the Arab Spring uprisings or a revolution seeking freedom for the Syrian people. Instead, he says, they are a Western plot directed by Israel and the United States (and its proxies in the Arab world), and a war against what the Americans see as the axis of evil in an effort to exclude Syria from the resistance.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-...ael-and-an-opposition-leader.premium-1.500635
 
I was thinking he'd flee to Zimbabwe; Mugabe is already host to Mengistu and was said to have taken advice from him on the mass home demolition program ZANU-PF did a few years ago.

Because when I wanna flee from a politically unstable state, Zimbabwe is gonna be my first choice of destination.
 
Back
Top Bottom