Down under or Thai? Aussie mum trades Oz for Land of Smiles

[elgordo38]

7 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

The palace counts more than one building. The Syrian republican guards have their HQ over there.

The palace is also equipped with lodgements for domestic or diplomatic guests. Bill Clinton slept there in the 90's when he visited Assad sr.

The palace counts also a conference room for meetings or seminars.

A small proportion is dedicated for the presidential family.

Defamation on a president for his use or occupation of an official service building is not really on topic too...

Knowing that the Assad family lived in an average condo in Damascus and all children went with regular public transportation to a French public school.

Nice try.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

Sounds like a first hand experience comment. Sorry no cigar Assad is somebody that has to go. 

[craigt3365]

22 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Majority of insurgents fighting in Aleppo were non-Syrians who took the local Syrian population as hostage.

That's not a civil war.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

Claiming a 'massacre' is not correct. It's rather hypocritical if you evaluate objectively what's happened in Mosul under the US coalition forces...civilians and truces were not a priority...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

It's not called the worst humanitarian disaster for nothing.  I find it hard to believe you are supporting this while just going after the US and blaming them for everything.  That's quite one sided.  Yes, the US is involved, as are many other foreign powers.  But the buck stops with Assad.  He is the president, right?

 

http://www.euronews.com/2013/07/16/un-syrian-conflict-is-worst-humanitarian-crisis-in-nearly-20-years-

Quote

The Syrian conflict has displaced millions. The UN says it is the worst humanitarian crisis in nearly 20 years. The number of Syrian people seeking refuge in neighbouring countries is growing: almost two million have fled to Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq.

 

[Thorgal]

Sounds like a first hand experience comment. Sorry no cigar Assad is somebody that has to go. 

You can find a good description of the palace on :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Palace,_Damascus

And the life of Assad is available on YouTube. I've found an unbiased one in French.

So far, my first hand experience...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Thorgal]

 

What about the democratic principles to be applied for the majority of the Syrian people...or is it a small minority who decides...

From my side, no partisan at all.

But intelligence obliges me to be more critical if a country fought 219 mostly offensive wars in 230 years, while Syria is actually fighting a defensive war against 80 countries...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

You can find a good description of the palace on :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Palace,_Damascus

And the life of Assad is available on YouTube. I've found an unbiased one in French.

So far, my first hand experience...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

From your link:

Quote

Currently, the family of Bashar al-Assad lives in the residence, but they also occasionally reside at the older Tishreen Palace in the Ar Rabwah neighborhood.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tishreen_Palace

Quote

Teshreen Palace (Arabic: قصر تشرين‎‎) is the residence for the President of Syria, located in Damascus. It is located in the Ar Rabwah neighborhood, South of Mount Qasioun. The building covers 10,000 square meters (108,000 square feet). During the Syrian civil war, there were reports that rebels fired mortars at the palace.^[1] The palace was used as the primary residence of the Assad family, until the construction of Presidential Palace on Mount Mazzeh was finished in the early 90's.

 

Yes, a small humble 10,000 SM dwelling.  Tough life.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

What about the democratic principles to be applied for the majority of the Syrian people...or is it a small minority who decides...

From my side, no partisan at all.

But intelligence obliges me to be more critical if a country fought 219 mostly offensive wars in 230 years, while Syria is actually fighting a defensive war against 80 countries...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

You need to quote other's posts properly.  I have no idea what you are replying to.  Plus, you are off topic.

Edited December 18, 2016 by craigt3365

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Thorgal said:

Assad has a professional army, but also another part of his army contains a majority of Syrian civilian volunteers. 3/4 of these volunteers are Sunni. The rest is Shia, Christian, Alawite, Alevite,etc.

Hezbollah exist of Christians, Shia and Sunni members.

The side of Assad counts thus Syrians, Ottomans, Arabs, Jews, Armenians, Palestinians, Russians, Iranians and many others.

Suggesting that it's a sectarian or religious war is not rational. It's not even a civil war, but should be defined as an attempt to regime change.

We didn't hear a lot about the shelling of western Aleppo and its citizens by foreign mercenaries of Al Nusra. 11.000 citizens died in the last 4 years.

Let's not forget that the US was not able to differentiate the US sponsored 'moderate' rebels from the more radical ones not so long ago. It's clear that all factions fought together, which makes the claim from OP ridiculous...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

Assad has a professional army, but also another part of his army contains a majority of Syrian civilian volunteers. 3/4 of these volunteers are Sunni. The rest is Shia, Christian, Alawite, Alevite,etc.

Hezbollah exist of Christians, Shia and Sunni members.
 

I'm pretty sure that you're describing the situation prior to the civil war, with regard to Assad support's composition.

Hezbollah is very much predominantly Shia - having some Sunni and Christians on board amount to a fig leaf.

 

The side of Assad counts thus Syrians, Ottomans, Arabs, Jews, Armenians, Palestinians, Russians, Iranians and many others.

 

No idea what you were getting at by "the side of Assad" - some of those included are mainly opposing or supporting, some are hardly involved.

 

Let's not forget that the US was not able to differentiate the US sponsored 'moderate' rebels from the more radical ones not so long ago. It's clear that all factions fought together, which makes the claim from OP ridiculous...

 

Alliances and allegiances can change quite rapidly in the context of this conflict. Similarly, those opposing Assad are often at odds amongst themselves.

 

[Gary A]

The bottom line is that it takes a hard ruthless man to control lunatic terrorists. The US has failed miserably with their attempts at nation building. Hopefully they have learned a lesson, but probably not.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

Same as your house, you didn't build it but it is yours to sell. The US government decides all foreign sales of weapons, And many are not documented.

 

And yet, somehow you seem to know about them....

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, Gary A said:

The bottom line is that it takes a hard ruthless man to control lunatic terrorists. The US has failed miserably with their attempts at nation building. Hopefully they have learned a lesson, but probably not.

Right.  That hard ruthless man in Syria obviously has not been able to control lunatic terrorists.  He failed miserably.  Hopefully, other dictators in the ME have learned a lesson, but probably not.

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

What about the democratic principles to be applied for the majority of the Syrian people...or is it a small minority who decides...

From my side, no partisan at all.

But intelligence obliges me to be more critical if a country fought 219 mostly offensive wars in 230 years, while Syria is actually fighting a defensive war against 80 countries...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

From my side, no partisan at all.

 

Whatever you say...

 

Syria is actually fighting a defensive war against 80 countries...

 

There aren't 80 countries at war with Syria.

[Thorgal]

 
From my side, no partisan at all.
 
Whatever you say...
 
Syria is actually fighting a defensive war against 80 countries...
 
There aren't 80 countries at war with Syria.

"From my side, no partisan at all" : reply to false assumptions that I would be an Assad supporter

"There aren't 80 countries at war with Syria" : here again you speak for others :

http://elpais.com/elpais/2016/02/20/inenglish/1456005883_962894.html



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

"From my side, no partisan at all" : reply to false assumptions that I would be an Assad supporter

"There aren't 80 countries at war with Syria" : here again you speak for others :

http://elpais.com/elpais/2016/02/20/inenglish/1456005883_962894.html



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

Reading your posts on these topics, there's every reason to think that you support Assad. That this may be a by product of your usual anti-US stance is possible.

 

Oh, Assad says there are 80 countries supporting those opposing him, and therefore it's true? Further, even his statement did not go as far as your own "at war" claim. Obviously his own military efforts supported by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are immaterial....

[Grubster]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And yet, somehow you seem to know about them....

Only when it comes out later and it has many times.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Only when it comes out later and it has many times.

 

General blanket statements ftw.

So nothing concrete with regard to the current topic?

[Thorgal]

 
Assad has a professional army, but also another part of his army contains a majority of Syrian civilian volunteers. 3/4 of these volunteers are Sunni. The rest is Shia, Christian, Alawite, Alevite,etc.

Hezbollah exist of Christians, Shia and Sunni members.
 
I'm pretty sure that you're describing the situation prior to the civil war, with regard to Assad support's composition.
Hezbollah is very much predominantly Shia - having some Sunni and Christians on board amount to a fig leaf.
 
The side of Assad counts thus Syrians, Ottomans, Arabs, Jews, Armenians, Palestinians, Russians, Iranians and many others.
 
No idea what you were getting at by "the side of Assad" - some of those included are mainly opposing or supporting, some are hardly involved.
 
Let's not forget that the US was not able to differentiate the US sponsored 'moderate' rebels from the more radical ones not so long ago. It's clear that all factions fought together, which makes the claim from OP ridiculous...
 
Alliances and allegiances can change quite rapidly in the context of this conflict. Similarly, those opposing Assad are often at odds amongst themselves.
 

1. Composition of Assads army was based after the rebuild of his army after the latest elections.
The period before is not relevant to OP.

2. I counted a few thousand of Sunni and Christians. That's more than a fig leaf.

3. "The side of Assad" : all people nations who recognise his sovereignty. To determine the right groups and their fidelity it's highly advisable to study the region as per 3000 years ago. Starting from 1947 is makes that you won't understand the complexity.

4. Alliances and allegiances can be seen all over Syria. Especially around Palmyra. Knowing that an army of +7.000 radical fighters came from the triangle Raqqa, Deir Ezour and Mosul, which is in fact 'controlled' area of the US coalition...pounding Fallujah once more was decisive to redirect ISIS troops to Palmyra without cutting them off...



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[craigt3365]

29 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

"From my side, no partisan at all" : reply to false assumptions that I would be an Assad supporter

"There aren't 80 countries at war with Syria" : here again you speak for others :

http://elpais.com/elpais/2016/02/20/inenglish/1456005883_962894.html



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Right.  That bastion of truth.  Assad. Too funny.

[jcsmith]

17 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

With this and Obama spouting off about hacking, again providing no tangible evidence, the current American administration is looking foolish. Not the best way to end their administration.

 

17 agencies have reached the same conclusion. They obviously aren't going to release the specifics on how they know because that would allow the hackers to know how they were detected and make adjustments to avoid it. 

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

1. Composition of Assads army was based after the rebuild of his army after the latest elections.
The period before is not relevant to OP.

2. I counted a few thousand of Sunni and Christians. That's more than a fig leaf.

3. "The side of Assad" : all people nations who recognise his sovereignty. To determine the right groups and their fidelity it's highly advisable to study the region as per 3000 years ago. Starting from 1947 is makes that you won't understand the complexity.

4. Alliances and allegiances can be seen all over Syria. Especially around Palmyra. Knowing that an army of +7.000 radical fighters came from the triangle Raqqa, Deir Ezour and Mosul, which is in fact 'controlled' area of the US coalition...pounding Fallujah once more was decisive to redirect ISIS troops to Palmyra without cutting them off...



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

The period referenced is relevant, considering the way alliances and circumstances change over time. 

 

I seriously doubt that you have "counted" a single one, let alone thousands. Considering Hezbollah is not overly open about publishing accurate figures regarding its strength, this statement seems even less probable. If this was supposed to be a reference to the Saraya, then it still wouldn't quite be the same as what was originally claimed.

 

The "side of Assad" statement still doesn't make a whole lot of sense with regard to the current situation and the OP. There is not such unity of opinion existing as you seem to suggest. But then again, hard to make sense of what your point was.

 

The last is just a jumble of unsupported statements which are meant to obfuscate the simple truth - clans, tribes, factions switch sides quite often in this conflict. It is not the US's doing, but more related to social structure, conflicting interests of various local groups and localized pressure by stronger parties.

[Thorgal]

 
Reading your posts on these topics, there's every reason to think that you support Assad. That this may be a by product of your usual anti-US stance is possible.
 
Oh, Assad says there are 80 countries supporting those opposing him, and therefore it's true? Further, even his statement did not go as far as your own "at war" claim. Obviously his own military efforts supported by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are immaterial....

Knowing more details about Assad and/or the Syrian conflict doesn't make me a supporter. As I've mentioned before : I'm not partisan. Means that I didn't chose a side. But again you're making assumptions that I've never made.

Idem dito for my by product. Critics or providing details of a particular government doesn't make you a hater from the whole country or its citizens.

I've provided a link from the interview with Assad about the 80 countries. The discussion originated from the idea that the Syrian conflict is falsely reported as 'a civil war'. A 'civil' war against at least 80 countries...

Furthermore, I don't agree that Kerry announced the OP by himself. Nothing was mentioned that the other members of the coalition agreed that it was a massacre.

Let's not forget that the US, UK and French UN representatives left the Security Council when the Syrian representative wanted to give first hand explanation of the situation in Aleppo.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Thorgal]

 
The period referenced is relevant, considering the way alliances and circumstances change over time. 
 
I seriously doubt that you have "counted" a single one, let alone thousands. Considering Hezbollah is not overly open about publishing accurate figures regarding its strength, this statement seems even less probable. If this was supposed to be a reference to the Saraya, then it still wouldn't quite be the same as what was originally claimed.
 
The "side of Assad" statement still doesn't make a whole lot of sense with regard to the current situation and the OP. There is not such unity of opinion existing as you seem to suggest. But then again, hard to make sense of what your point was.
 
The last is just a jumble of unsupported statements which are meant to obfuscate the simple truth - clans, tribes, factions switch sides quite often in this conflict. It is not the US's doing, but more related to social structure, conflicting interests of various local groups and localized pressure by stronger parties.

Now you're right.

Cheers.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Knowing more details about Assad and/or the Syrian conflict doesn't make me a supporter. As I've mentioned before : I'm not partisan. Means that I didn't chose a side. But again you're making assumptions that I've never made.

Idem dito for my by product. Critics or providing details of a particular government doesn't make you a hater from the whole country or its citizens.

I've provided a link from the interview with Assad about the 80 countries. The discussion originated from the idea that the Syrian conflict is falsely reported as 'a civil war'. A 'civil' war against at least 80 countries...

Furthermore, I don't agree that Kerry announced the OP by himself. Nothing was mentioned that the other members of the coalition agreed that it was a massacre.

Let's not forget that the US, UK and French UN representatives left the Security Council when the Syrian representative wanted to give first hand explanation of the situation in Aleppo.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

Know more details how? Repeatedly quoting  pro-Assad propaganda bits isn't it. Seeing that almost all of your posts are pro-Assad, or deride anything to do with those opposing him - seems like a fair assumption to consider you a supporter. The anti-US in this context was with regard to international relations, though it was obvious.

 

Assad saying that there are 80 countries assisting those opposing him does not make it a fact. It is also not what you posted, which was Syria being at war with 80 countries. Taking everything Assad says for granted does not seem like a non-partisan position.

 

You keep bringing up all sort of semi-related issues without any clear reference. I get the obfuscation value, thanks.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed. 

[craigt3365]

17 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

Knowing more details about Assad and/or the Syrian conflict doesn't make me a supporter. As I've mentioned before : I'm not partisan. Means that I didn't chose a side. But again you're making assumptions that I've never made.

Idem dito for my by product. Critics or providing details of a particular government doesn't make you a hater from the whole country or its citizens.

I've provided a link from the interview with Assad about the 80 countries. The discussion originated from the idea that the Syrian conflict is falsely reported as 'a civil war'. A 'civil' war against at least 80 countries...

Furthermore, I don't agree that Kerry announced the OP by himself. Nothing was mentioned that the other members of the coalition agreed that it was a massacre.

Let's not forget that the US, UK and French UN representatives left the Security Council when the Syrian representative wanted to give first hand explanation of the situation in Aleppo.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

Quote

Let's not forget that the US, UK and French UN representatives left the Security Council when the Syrian representative wanted to give first hand explanation of the situation in Aleppo.

 

Because they knew what was being said was all lies.  You're stuck on believing everything this brutal regime says, along with Russia.  Best you research the other side of the story.  Makes your arguments more valid. 

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-ambassador-walks-out-un-security-council-meeting-russia-accused-war-crimes-aleppo-1583232

 

Quote

 

UK ambassador walks out of UN Security Council meeting as Russia is accused of war crimes in Aleppo

French and US diplomats joined Matthew Rycroft in leaving after Syria's ambassador was called to speak.

 

"After five years of conflict, you might think that the regime has had its fill of barbarity - that its sick bloodlust against its own people has finally run its course.

 

"But this weekend, the regime and Russia have instead plunged to new depths and unleashed a new hell on Aleppo."

 

 

[elgordo38]

On 12/18/2016 at 11:48 AM, craigt3365 said:

It's not called the worst humanitarian disaster for nothing.  I find it hard to believe you are supporting this while just going after the US and blaming them for everything.  That's quite one sided.  Yes, the US is involved, as are many other foreign powers.  But the buck stops with Assad.  He is the president, right?

 

http://www.euronews.com/2013/07/16/un-syrian-conflict-is-worst-humanitarian-crisis-in-nearly-20-years-

 

When it come to complicity its like 50 shades of grey. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎18‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 4:24 AM, Asiantravel said:

so why doesn't Kerry also  express his horror at the crimes going on in Eritrea by the government against its people?

these people are so transparent and it's nothing to do with humanitarian concerns at all

It's all political with political hacks like Kerry. Bad stuff is happening all over, like in Sudan and South Sudan, and many other places, but all he does is bleat on about Aleppo because it's the Russians, right? The Russians are the new boogy men and so the narrative is that they are the worst on the planet. What happened to IS and the really terrible things they are doing?

Kerry and the last incompetent at the UN are the same, wringing their hands at the chosen atrocity of the moment, but doing nothing about it.

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's all political with political hacks like Kerry. Bad stuff is happening all over, like in Sudan and South Sudan, and many other places, but all he does is bleat on about Aleppo because it's the Russians, right? The Russians are the new boogy men and so the narrative is that they are the worst on the planet. What happened to IS and the really terrible things they are doing?

Kerry and the last incompetent at the UN are the same, wringing their hands at the chosen atrocity of the moment, but doing nothing about it.

 

How does criticizing the Russian actions bears on doing the same with regard to IS? Considering you yourself actually use the same argumentation with regard to other issues, the above seems like yet another display of disingenuousness.

[craigt3365]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's all political with political hacks like Kerry. Bad stuff is happening all over, like in Sudan and South Sudan, and many other places, but all he does is bleat on about Aleppo because it's the Russians, right? The Russians are the new boogy men and so the narrative is that they are the worst on the planet. What happened to IS and the really terrible things they are doing?

Kerry and the last incompetent at the UN are the same, wringing their hands at the chosen atrocity of the moment, but doing nothing about it.

Perhaps he bleats on about Syria because it's the worst humanitarian disaster since WW2?  Kinda makes sense.  Russia has killed more civilians in Syria than IS has! So yes, he's got a right to be critical.  Hard for him to do anything about it when Russia vetoes every UN SC resolution regarding Syria.  Place the blame properly.

[elgordo38]

38 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's all political with political hacks like Kerry. Bad stuff is happening all over, like in Sudan and South Sudan, and many other places, but all he does is bleat on about Aleppo because it's the Russians, right? The Russians are the new boogy men and so the narrative is that they are the worst on the planet. What happened to IS and the really terrible things they are doing?

Kerry and the last incompetent at the UN are the same, wringing their hands at the chosen atrocity of the moment, but doing nothing about it.

Seems like the solution will be "Putin says that Russia must develop more advanced shield penetrating nukes. Trump says the US army must improve its nuclear arsenal" Boy are these two "pals" ever starting out on the right footing. Nuclear chess. 

[deathmule]

23 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Perhaps he bleats on about Syria because it's the worst humanitarian disaster since WW2?  Kinda makes sense.  Russia has killed more civilians in Syria than IS has! So yes, he's got a right to be critical.  Hard for him to do anything about it when Russia vetoes every UN SC resolution regarding Syria.  Place the blame properly.

 

Russia wouldn't have to kill civilians if the USA shared intelligence with them instead of trying to hide the extremists'/rebels trainded by them, locations