Saudi Arabia still sees no role for Assad in Syrian transition

[Morch]

1 minute ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Yes, lots of people reckon that Saudi Arabia has no credibility in this. But, Saudi Arabia is funding the rebels, as you are saying. And this means that Saudi Arabia is having a massive impact on Syria. The war in Syria will continue as long as Saudi Arabia and others continue to fund the rebels. Washington has to order Saudi Arabia to stop the funding, that's when the war will finish.

 

 

Whereas you see no issues with Iran bankrolling and supporting Assad, or Russia providing direct support as well.

The US cannot "order" SA to do anything much.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Yes, lots of people reckon that Saudi Arabia has no credibility in this. But, Saudi Arabia is funding the rebels, as you are saying. And this means that Saudi Arabia is having a massive impact on Syria. The war in Syria will continue as long as Saudi Arabia and others continue to fund the rebels. Washington has to order Saudi Arabia to stop the funding, that's when the war will finish.

 

You tend to leave out Iran.  Why?

[dogpatch55]

Be more likely Saudi Arabia telling the US what to do than the other way round

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dogpatch55 said:

Be more likely Saudi Arabia telling the US what to do than the other way round

 

Not likely at all.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Not likely at all.

Not any more. Luckily!

[tonbridgebrit]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Whereas you see no issues with Iran bankrolling and supporting Assad, or Russia providing direct support as well.

The US cannot "order" SA to do anything much.

 

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

You tend to leave out Iran.  Why?

Well, I think it's best if Assad wins this civil war, and the rebels don't win. That's why I don't want to blast Russia and Iran.

Why is it better if Assad wins ? Okay, if Assad wins, no need for Washington bomb Assad after he has won. What if the rebels actually remove Assad ? That creates a problem. Washington will have to look at the rebels who will still be there, and then bomb the ones who are against Europe and America. So, Assad winning is the safer option. Washington bombing the rebels might not remove the rebels.

The issue of the Kurds has been raised. Turkey doesn't actually like the Kurdish rebels, what will Turkey do about the Kurdish rebels if Assad does go ?

Edited August 7, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[nasanews]

I know what I am talking about because I was born and lived in the middle east and Qatar true support legitimate free Syrian army which are labeled unfortunately by ignorant westerns as extremists.

Where as Saudi Arabia is with the hateful western regimes supporting ISIS to revoke the revolution especially the rebels who were fighting against Assad regime.

The west and their hypocrite loyal scum bag dictators fear an Islamic country based on bullshit and non sense facts.

Tunisian revolution was peacefully revoked, Egyptian revolution was revoked by military coup, Yemen revolution war is still going on, Libya revolution was revoked and evils brought Colonel Haftar who used to live in Virginia as he fled from Qaddafi to fight against legitimate rebels.

In short most westerns will never accept muslims unless Muslims quit believing in Islam.

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, nasanews said:

I know what I am talking about because I was born and lived in the middle east and Qatar true support legitimate free Syrian army which are labeled unfortunately by ignorant westerns as extremists.

Where as Saudi Arabia is with the hateful western regimes supporting ISIS to revoke the revolution especially the rebels who were fighting against Assad regime.

The west and their hypocrite loyal scum bag dictators fear an Islamic country based on bullshit and non sense facts.

Tunisian revolution was peacefully revoked, Egyptian revolution was revoked by military coup, Yemen revolution war is still going on, Libya revolution was revoked and evils brought Colonel Haftar who used to live in Virginia as he fled from Qaddafi to fight against legitimate rebels.

In short most westerns will never accept muslims unless Muslims quit believing in Islam.

Your last statement is totally untrue.  Westerners support Islam.  Just not the militant radicals.  It's time for the followers of Islam to deal with these people themselves.  Sadly, the sects of Islam hate each other more than they hate anybody else.  That needs to change.

[craigt3365]

Great new graphic here showing the mess in Syria.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/07/middleeast/syria-safe-zones-russia/index.html

 

[nasanews]

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Westerners support Islam

Oh my lord have mercy on me if I offended western countries who did their best to help Muslims in Arab spring countries when they stood up against their dictators and eventually got rid of  all of them so they could start new decent life with respect to their human rights and have their own way to live but sadly those revolutionists were surprised by powerful western countries which do not recognize freedom of choice but to them selves because they think people like Muslims do not deserve democracy because they would abuse it.

So, those double standers western countries had to intervene in Arab spring countries through loyal traitors in some countries like Tunisia and Egypt and by military air and ground forces in Libya and Syria and Iraq before them leading to total destruction of their countries systems and live in daily civil wars and forcing them to flee to safe countries so they could be labeled terrorists and worst refugees.

[craigt3365]

Just now, nasanews said:

Oh my lord have mercy on me if I offended western countries who did their best to help Muslims in Arab spring countries when they stood up against their dictators and eventually got rid of  all of them so they could start new decent life with respect to their human rights and have their own way to live but sadly those revolutionists were surprised by powerful western countries which do not recognize freedom of choice but to them selves because they think people like Muslims do not deserve democracy because they would abuse it.

So, those double standers western countries had to intervene in Arab spring countries through loyal traitors in some countries like Tunisia and Egypt and by military air and ground forces in Libya and Syria and Iraq before them leading to total destruction of their countries systems and live in daily civil wars and forcing them to flee to safe countries so they could be labeled terrorists and worst refugees.

Perhaps your anger should be directed towards those dictators, people who supported them, etc.  These are the ones to blame.  Not just the West.  Accept responsibility for part of the problem.

 

You can't blame the West for everything bad that happens around the world. Though many try.

 

And yes, I've been to many Muslim countries.  Was in Kuwait and Lebanon recently and will be in Bangladesh in a few weeks.

 

 

[tonbridgebrit]

14 hours ago, nasanews said:

I know what I am talking about because I was born and lived in the middle east and Qatar true support legitimate free Syrian army which are labeled unfortunately by ignorant westerns as extremists.

Where as Saudi Arabia is with the hateful western regimes supporting ISIS to revoke the revolution especially the rebels who were fighting against Assad regime.

The west and their hypocrite loyal scum bag dictators fear an Islamic country based on bullshit and non sense facts.

Tunisian revolution was peacefully revoked, Egyptian revolution was revoked by military coup, Yemen revolution war is still going on, Libya revolution was revoked and evils brought Colonel Haftar who used to live in Virginia as he fled from Qaddafi to fight against legitimate rebels.

In short most westerns will never accept muslims unless Muslims quit believing in Islam.

You want to say, that Saudi Arabia is with the hateful Western regimes supporting ISIS ? So, you want to condemn Saudi Arabia ? When you say "hateful Western regimes", do you include America ?  When you say 'the West', do you include Russia ?

And you think Qatar are supporting the true legitimate free Syrian army ? Maybe, you are correct. We know that Qatar has a massive US military base. You accept Qatar is friends with Washington ?

Yes, in Egypt, Egypt had a vote. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, they was elected, they was removed by a coup. Do you want to see the Muslim Brotherhood in control of Egypt ?

You are against ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front ?  Al-Nusra Front are Al-Qaeda in Syria. And you feel that Islamic groups are good for Syria ?

[Morch]

On 8/7/2017 at 9:58 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

 

Well, I think it's best if Assad wins this civil war, and the rebels don't win. That's why I don't want to blast Russia and Iran.

Why is it better if Assad wins ? Okay, if Assad wins, no need for Washington bomb Assad after he has won. What if the rebels actually remove Assad ? That creates a problem. Washington will have to look at the rebels who will still be there, and then bomb the ones who are against Europe and America. So, Assad winning is the safer option. Washington bombing the rebels might not remove the rebels.

The issue of the Kurds has been raised. Turkey doesn't actually like the Kurdish rebels, what will Turkey do about the Kurdish rebels if Assad does go ?

 

Thanks for acknowledging your partisan position, and deliberately minimizing Iran and Russia's involvement.

 

As for your standing nonsense descriptions of how-things-will-unfold-if or the imaginary simplistic forays into what you claim US policy to be - these were countered on many a topic. To date You have failed to support either.

 

The "issue of the Kurds" addressed earlier was not the deflection provided above, but their role among the forces opposing Assad.

 

[Morch]

On 8/8/2017 at 1:41 AM, nasanews said:

I know what I am talking about because I was born and lived in the middle east and Qatar true support legitimate free Syrian army which are labeled unfortunately by ignorant westerns as extremists.

Where as Saudi Arabia is with the hateful western regimes supporting ISIS to revoke the revolution especially the rebels who were fighting against Assad regime.

The west and their hypocrite loyal scum bag dictators fear an Islamic country based on bullshit and non sense facts.

Tunisian revolution was peacefully revoked, Egyptian revolution was revoked by military coup, Yemen revolution war is still going on, Libya revolution was revoked and evils brought Colonel Haftar who used to live in Virginia as he fled from Qaddafi to fight against legitimate rebels.

In short most westerns will never accept muslims unless Muslims quit believing in Islam.

 

Being a native of the Middle East is does not automatically or necessarily say much about a person's take when it comes to matters pertaining to regional or international geopolitical matters. One thing most people that spent enough time in the region could  attest to is the prevalence of belief in conspiracy theories. Considering issues of education and freedom of press complicates things further.

 

The "West" does not support ISIS, and your last sentence, other than being bogus, doesn't even begin to make sense.

[nasanews]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Being a native of the Middle East is does not automatically or necessarily say much about a person's take when it comes to matters pertaining to regional or international geopolitical matters. One thing most people that spent enough time in the region could  attest to is the prevalence of belief in conspiracy theories. Considering issues of education and freedom of press complicates things further.

 

The "West" does not support ISIS, and your last sentence, other than being bogus, doesn't even begin to make sense.

Please disregard my last emotional sentence in my last post.

People in the middle east especially in Arab spring countries did all they could to get rid of their dictators and after they have done so, western countries like USA supported military coup over Muslim brotherhood which i disagree with their way of understanding  Islam in Egypt..

USA and some European countries did and still support militia head by Haftar who was an asylum seeker living in USA to fight the revolutionists in Libya.   How about Syria how come USA did not intervene to help those hundreds of thousands murdered by their own president as Obama said and install a secular government if necessary, but standing neutral during unjust times is the same as supporting those committing crimes to their people.

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, nasanews said:

Please disregard my last emotional sentence in my last post.

People in the middle east especially in Arab spring countries did all they could to get rid of their dictators and after they have done so, western countries like USA supported military coup over Muslim brotherhood which i disagree with their way of understanding  Islam in Egypt..

USA and some European countries did and still support militia head by Haftar who was an asylum seeker living in USA to fight the revolutionists in Libya.   How about Syria how come USA did not intervene to help those hundreds of thousands murdered by their own president as Obama said and install a secular government if necessary, but standing neutral during unjust times is the same as supporting those committing crimes to their people.

I guess one reason is that the US saw how well intervention worked in Iraq.

[craigt3365]

15 minutes ago, nasanews said:

Please disregard my last emotional sentence in my last post.

People in the middle east especially in Arab spring countries did all they could to get rid of their dictators and after they have done so, western countries like USA supported military coup over Muslim brotherhood which i disagree with their way of understanding  Islam in Egypt..

USA and some European countries did and still support militia head by Haftar who was an asylum seeker living in USA to fight the revolutionists in Libya.   How about Syria how come USA did not intervene to help those hundreds of thousands murdered by their own president as Obama said and install a secular government if necessary, but standing neutral during unjust times is the same as supporting those committing crimes to their people.

With respect, responsibility starts at home.  You can't blame the West/US for all the woes in the ME.  Sure, they were part of the problem.  But nowhere near the biggest one.  Internal support for brutal dictators is the main problem.  Corruption.  If there was NO support, there'd be NO dictators.

 

Your comments on Syria.  Danged if you do, danged if you don't.  No easy answers.

[nasanews]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Internal support for brutal dictators is the main problem.

Craig thanks man this the most humorous joke I have ever encountered in my whole life.

[craigt3365]

11 minutes ago, nasanews said:

Craig thanks man this the most humorous joke I have ever encountered in my whole life.

So you are saying it's not a true statement?  Kinda hard for a dictator to take power and oppress his people with NO supporters.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, nasanews said:

Please disregard my last emotional sentence in my last post.

People in the middle east especially in Arab spring countries did all they could to get rid of their dictators and after they have done so, western countries like USA supported military coup over Muslim brotherhood which i disagree with their way of understanding  Islam in Egypt..

USA and some European countries did and still support militia head by Haftar who was an asylum seeker living in USA to fight the revolutionists in Libya.   How about Syria how come USA did not intervene to help those hundreds of thousands murdered by their own president as Obama said and install a secular government if necessary, but standing neutral during unjust times is the same as supporting those committing crimes to their people.

 

Not sure what you're on about. Seems like you're complaining that the US did not fully support popular efforts (which were largely taken over by Islamic groups) to change regimes in the ME. At the same time, you claim not to identify with such groups. Other than not being factually problematic, the post doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

When the US intervenes some people whine. When it doesn't, other people whine. Can't keep everyone happy.

[Credo]

The general overriding policy for the US has been the protection of US interests abroad.   In Syria there are really no US interests.   There are no businesses, factories, resources or traffic paths, such as waterways, air ways, that are a direct interest to the US.   

 

Interest in Syria is tangential, in that the location of terrorist groups within the borders of Syria, the making of counterfeit US $100 bills and other subversive activities are of interest, but those are directly under the control and direction of Assad & Co..

 

The US is extremely unlikely to ever support Assad.   Like his father, he spent a lot of time and money in passive-aggressive activities to undermine the US and its economy.   

[tonbridgebrit]

8 hours ago, nasanews said:

Please disregard my last emotional sentence in my last post.

People in the middle east especially in Arab spring countries did all they could to get rid of their dictators and after they have done so, western countries like USA supported military coup over Muslim brotherhood which i disagree with their way of understanding  Islam in Egypt..

USA and some European countries did and still support militia head by Haftar who was an asylum seeker living in USA to fight the revolutionists in Libya.   How about Syria how come USA did not intervene to help those hundreds of thousands murdered by their own president as Obama said and install a secular government if necessary, but standing neutral during unjust times is the same as supporting those committing crimes to their people.

The Arab Spring. This removed the Mubarak regime (Mubarak was supported by the USA) in Egypt. And the Muslim Brotherhood, they won the democratic vote after Mubarak's removal. But you are saying that you don't actually like the Muslim Brotherhood ? But you thought that the Arab Spring was good ?  The USA and Saudi Arabia did not support the Muslim Brotherhood, yes, a coup removed the Muslim Brotherhood. Do you support the guys who control Egypt today ?

About Syria. You want to condemn the USA because they allowed Assad to kill hundreds of thousands of people ? Well, the USA was unable to quickly remove Assad. Off-course, the USA did not want to send into Syria a huge number of ground-forces (soldiers). At the beginning of the Syrian civil war, there was the FSA, the Free Syrian Army. The truth ? I think it is the case, that the media exaggerated the power of the FSA, the FSA never was an effective fighting force. I think we all accept that.

So, what happened ?  Saudi Arabia was allowed to send arms and money to several rebel groups, but those groups were all Islamic groups. Washington also backed several rebel groups. So, Washington did not send soldiers to remove Assad, but Washington certainly supported the rebels who were fighting against Assad. We must remember that, the rebels who did most of the fighting against Assad were ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front. This is something that we all know. Was there any rebels who were secular, and wanted to remove Assad ? The truth, I think there were very few. If they existed, Washington would/should have supported them.

The media also revealed that, Washington trained and armed some rebels, but most of those rebels defected to groups who are not friendly towards America and Europe. So, to me, critcising Washington for being partly responsible for the civil war in Syria, that is reasonable. But the exact reason for criticising Washington should be because "Washington has backed a lot of the rebels, Washington also allowed Saudi Arabia and others to back a lot of the rebels, and supporting the rebels, well, this has allowed the civil war to continue, and the civil war has kiled many people".

Edited August 9, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[The Old Bull]

On 8/7/2017 at 1:54 PM, nasanews said:

I don't think national Syrian rebels like Syrian free army who consists of decent Syrians including highly educated professionals would agree to be with such horrible maniacs like isis because isis came into Syria 2013 two years after the revolution started in 2011. The question that points fingers to the U.S as a world leader country how come they let Russia bomb civilians and rebels fighting their brutal dictator without U.S approval.

The Syrian free army is a figment of the western media's imagination. What you have in Syria is about 100 war lords all fighting each other, stealing goats and 13 year old girls from each other, taking advantage of a weakened central government.

[nasanews]

8 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

We must remember that, the rebels who did most of the fighting against Assad were ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front. This is something that we all know.

No ISIS was leashed into Syria back in 2013 to revoke the revolution by fighting free Syrian army and groups who also fight against Assad.

Now after ISIS done the job they are being fought in Mousel in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria by USA and Russia.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

The Arab Spring. This removed the Mubarak regime (Mubarak was supported by the USA) in Egypt. And the Muslim Brotherhood, they won the democratic vote after Mubarak's removal. But you are saying that you don't actually like the Muslim Brotherhood ? But you thought that the Arab Spring was good ?  The USA and Saudi Arabia did not support the Muslim Brotherhood, yes, a coup removed the Muslim Brotherhood. Do you support the guys who control Egypt today ?

About Syria. You want to condemn the USA because they allowed Assad to kill hundreds of thousands of people ? Well, the USA was unable to quickly remove Assad. Off-course, the USA did not want to send into Syria a huge number of ground-forces (soldiers). At the beginning of the Syrian civil war, there was the FSA, the Free Syrian Army. The truth ? I think it is the case, that the media exaggerated the power of the FSA, the FSA never was an effective fighting force. I think we all accept that.

So, what happened ?  Saudi Arabia was allowed to send arms and money to several rebel groups, but those groups were all Islamic groups. Washington also backed several rebel groups. So, Washington did not send soldiers to remove Assad, but Washington certainly supported the rebels who were fighting against Assad. We must remember that, the rebels who did most of the fighting against Assad were ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front. This is something that we all know. Was there any rebels who were secular, and wanted to remove Assad ? The truth, I think there were very few. If they existed, Washington would/should have supported them.

The media also revealed that, Washington trained and armed some rebels, but most of those rebels defected to groups who are not friendly towards America and Europe. So, to me, critcising Washington for being partly responsible for the civil war in Syria, that is reasonable. But the exact reason for criticising Washington should be because "Washington has backed a lot of the rebels, Washington also allowed Saudi Arabia and others to back a lot of the rebels, and supporting the rebels, well, this has allowed the civil war to continue, and the civil war has kiled many people".

 

But no issues with others prolonging the civil war by supporting Assad. Your position has nothing to do with civilian casualties or the damage incurred. Your "account" habitually drops all mention of Iran and Russia's support. It glosses over Russia blocking attempts to galvanize action and agreements in the UNSC. It lumps all rebels as Al Nusra Front or ISIS. It ignores the Kurds.

 

That's not about "we all know", more like a partisan position.

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, nasanews said:

No ISIS was leashed into Syria back in 2013 to revoke the revolution by fighting free Syrian army and groups who also fight against Assad.

Now after ISIS done the job they are being fought in Mousel in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria by USA and Russia.

IS was in Syria long before 2013 and had connections to Assad. He used them for a variety of purposes.

[tonbridgebrit]

3 hours ago, nasanews said:

No ISIS was leashed into Syria back in 2013 to revoke the revolution by fighting free Syrian army and groups who also fight against Assad.

Now after ISIS done the job they are being fought in Mousel in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria by USA and Russia.

ISIS went into Syria, yes, ISIS fought against the other rebels, but, ISIS did a lot of fighting AGAINST Assad. For those who hate Assad, well, they have to say "thank you" to ISIS. This is because ISIS prevented Assad from totally removing the rebellion.

ISIS in Iraq ? The Iraqi government is supported by Washington, and the Iraqi government are trying to remove ISIS in Iraq. Yes, Washington is in a peculiar or strange position. Washington wants to see ISIS in Iraq removed, they've wanted that since the beginning. But ISIS in Syria is preventing Assad taking over the whole of Syria, Washington hates Assad, that's why we have a lot of conspiracy theories about Washington secretly backing ISIS.

I'm trying to say that, a lot of Assad's soldiers have been fighting against ISIS since ISIS first went into Syria. If there was no ISIS, Assad would have found it a lot easier to remove the other rebels.

[craigt3365]

Exactly. Conspiracy theories only about the US supporting IS. Sad such rumors are even created.

[simple1]

27 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

ISIS went into Syria, yes, ISIS fought against the other rebels, but, ISIS did a lot of fighting AGAINST Assad. For those who hate Assad, well, they have to say "thank you" to ISIS. This is because ISIS prevented Assad from totally removing the rebellion.

ISIS in Iraq ? The Iraqi government is supported by Washington, and the Iraqi government are trying to remove ISIS in Iraq. Yes, Washington is in a peculiar or strange position. Washington wants to see ISIS in Iraq removed, they've wanted that since the beginning. But ISIS in Syria is preventing Assad taking over the whole of Syria, Washington hates Assad, that's why we have a lot of conspiracy theories about Washington secretly backing ISIS.

I'm trying to say that, a lot of Assad's soldiers have been fighting against ISIS since ISIS first went into Syria. If there was no ISIS, Assad would have found it a lot easier to remove the other rebels.

Today's ISIS were in Syria from about 2010 onward. Significant counter terror consultancies had identified them in their prior naming conventions and issued reports about the threat. e.g. check out Rand Corporation. Don't know what your sources of info are, but Syrian Free Army, what use to be named as Al Nusra and Kurdish forces were the main combatants against the Assad regime, not ISIS. Overall Russian air power hadn't paid much attention to ISIS, but to other 'rebel forces', why would that be?

Edited August 10, 2017 by simple1

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Today's ISIS were in Syria from about 2010 onward. Significant counter terror consultancies had identified them in their prior incarnation and issued reports about the treat. Don't know what your sources of info are, but Syrian Free Army, what use to be named as Al Nusra and Kurdish forces were the main combatants against the Assad regime, not ISIS. Overall Russian air power hadn't paid much attention to ISIS, but to other 'rebel forces', why would that be?

The Syrian Free Army did not used to be Al Nusra and Kurdish forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army