Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

How on earth do you know that the coalition will not cooperate with Assad ? Such stupid comments might be accepted by some but no to me Plonker. Whow on earth can you say that " WE DO NOT RECOGNIZE. .....
Who the hell is this " WE "
YOU ARE MAKING A FOOL OF YOUR SELF ON THE VERY THREAD THAT EXPOSED YOU WITHOUT A SINGLE SUPPORTER.
Your assessment on the Syrian conflict is ludicrous and damn right stupid. Now, get it in your childish head. Its not YOUR coalition, its not YOUR decision whether the coalition does business or not with Assad.

Paphitis can be a 6-star general on the battlefield, an F16 super pilot doing death-defying stunts, the admiral of a modern armada and anything else he wants… it just depends on which day of the week you catch him!

[Lordo]

bafidoboullo is not valid never mind his views. can somebody vasilate him i mean validate him then he will be ok ed.

[Tim Drayton]

See my post in the War on Syria thread.

All I can say is that I think there a few goodguys in the Syrian fight, when it comes to being either active as pro or anti Assad, withthe exception of the majority of the civilian population who just want a reasonable safe life. My own limited ulnderstanding was that as despots went Assad was no worse than any and better than many..ruthless with obvious opponents but not too capricious in victimising any group. His likely main fault as far as the USA was concerned was that he was anti isreali and openly supported Hezzbollah, which put him in the axis of evil. American foreign policy in the region has been a disgrace, hypocritical in the extreme in supporting various despotic rulers, and casting them off once a better option came along. Few of the benefits of the American way of life filtered through, hence serious local distrust of the USA at all levels.

Regime change through eg the last Iraq war and the Arab Spring has not been a success, mainly because there has been no credible successor with enough local support to properlly fill the space left by the departing regime. That is always a recipe for disaster. That is demonstrated in Syria by the factionalised nature of the opposition and tgat Assad retained suffucient support to survive.

The Americans might be begining to appreciate the meaning of tbe saying, "better the devil you know".

Partition is a possibility. Whther thst is on the cards, I do not know, but one may end up with Kurdish autonomous region, as in Iraq. That raises many possibiliies, not all goid.

I take your point. For those of us who believe the USA and other Western powers were at least instrumental in bringing Erdoğan to power in Turkey, and looking at his dictatorial leanings, it is pretty hypocritical for them to demand that a dictator like Assad go.

America has long been selective in the dictatorial regimes they chose to support and doubly hypocrtical by imposing dictators where they are concerned that an alternative with better democratic credentials may not toe their line.

Of course, if you believe it's based on principles, then it appears to be hypocritical. On the other hand, based on the premise that it's all about self-interest, then it makes sense. Russia wants to keep its Mediterranean naval base and it sees Assad as guaranteeing that, so he is a good dictator in their eyes. It baffles me as to why the West doesn't consider a secular Western-oriented Turkey to be to its advantage, but the Western ruling elites obviously continue to believe that the islamist Erdoğan serves their interests and so he is a good dictator in their eyes, even if nowadays we hear the odd sanctimonious word of disapproval from some Western leaders about Erdoğan's 'excesses'.

[supporttheunderdog]

See my post in the War on Syria thread.

All I can say is that I think there a few goodguys in the Syrian fight, when it comes to being either active as pro or anti Assad, withthe exception of the majority of the civilian population who just want a reasonable safe life. My own limited ulnderstanding was that as despots went Assad was no worse than any and better than many..ruthless with obvious opponents but not too capricious in victimising any group. His likely main fault as far as the USA was concerned was that he was anti isreali and openly supported Hezzbollah, which put him in the axis of evil. American foreign policy in the region has been a disgrace, hypocritical in the extreme in supporting various despotic rulers, and casting them off once a better option came along. Few of the benefits of the American way of life filtered through, hence serious local distrust of the USA at all levels.

Regime change through eg the last Iraq war and the Arab Spring has not been a success, mainly because there has been no credible successor with enough local support to properlly fill the space left by the departing regime. That is always a recipe for disaster. That is demonstrated in Syria by the factionalised nature of the opposition and tgat Assad retained suffucient support to survive.

The Americans might be begining to appreciate the meaning of tbe saying, "better the devil you know".

Partition is a possibility. Whther thst is on the cards, I do not know, but one may end up with Kurdish autonomous region, as in Iraq. That raises many possibiliies, not all goid.

I take your point. For those of us who believe the USA and other Western powers were at least instrumental in bringing Erdoğan to power in Turkey, and looking at his dictatorial leanings, it is pretty hypocritical for them to demand that a dictator like Assad go.

America has long been selective in the dictatorial regimes they chose to support and doubly hypocrtical by imposing dictators where they are concerned that an alternative with better democratic credentials may not toe their line.

Of course, if you believe it's based on principles, then it appears to be hypocritical. On the other hand, based on the premise that it's all about self-interest, then it makes sense. Russia wants to keep its Mediterranean naval base and it sees Assad as guaranteeing that, so he is a good dictator in their eyes. It baffles me as to why the West doesn't consider a secular Western-oriented Turkey to be to its advantage, but the Western ruling elites obviously continue to believe that the islamist Erdoğan serves their interests and so he is a good dictator in their eyes, even if nowadays we hear the odd sanctimonious word of disapproval from some Western leaders about Erdoğan's 'excesses'.

I entirely agree with you: I would go further- even when founded on self interest (which it no doubt is) there is the hypocrisy of promoting democracy - which is rapidly vanishing in Turkey - but then as some one pointed out "Truth, Justice, Freedom AND the American way of Life" is an oxymoron.

[Robin Hood]

This article shows the other side of the story. An infinitely more rational view and shows how limiting your concept of the events to simply those of the western main stream media gives a thoroughly distorted representation of events in Syria. It is an article worth reading in full as it goes through all the gains that the Syrian people have achieved over the years by remaining an independent State and their government, for decades, resisting the US trying to impose regime change in Syria to put another US puppet in to protect US/Israel interests as they have done every where else in the region and beyond.

The last thing the US/NATO and its Arab/Islamic supporters are interested in is the wishes and the welfare of the Syrian people!

Paphitis will of course just dismiss this as propaganda, as it conflicts with his paranoid views, although over the months many such articles have been posted supporting what the article says. It dispels some of the myths that he has presented as a factual reality.

THE TRUTH ABOUT SYRIA: A MANUFACTURED WAR AGAINST AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY

Some quotes ........

In terms of international law, the United States has invaded Syria, a sovereign country and United Nations member state. This is the not the first time, though.

One thing that distinguishes Syria from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and various other U.S.-aligned regimes throughout the region is religious freedom. In Syria, Sunnis, Christians, Alawites, Druze, Jews, and other religious groups are permitted to practice their religious faith freely. The government is secular, and respects the rights of the Sunni Muslim majority as well as religious minorities.

While Western media presents the Syrian civil war as a “battle for democracy” led by “revolutionaries,” the primary goal of almost every insurgent organization is creating a Sunni caliphate — one that does not actually suit Sunnis though, but rather a perverted politicized version of Sunnism created by Saudi Arabia to ideologically control that region. The unifying religious perspective of the Syrian “rebels” is the interpretation of Sunni Islam practiced and promoted by Saudi Arabia, known as Wahhabism.

While Western media has highlighted allegations that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons, Carla Del Ponte from the United Nations confirmed that the foreign-backed insurgents have long been using sarin nerve gas and other chemical weapons

.

Full article:

http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_Trut ... 8/Y/M.html

[miltiades]

The ....General has already stated that HE would never accept anything less than Assads removal. HIS troops will see to that.

[Paphitis]

General Plonker writes:

"The Coalition will not cooperate with Assad under any circumstances whatsoever. We do not recognize the legitimacy of the Syrian Government until a political solution is achieved and transition occurs."

How on earth do you know that the coalition will not cooperate with Assad ? Such stupid comments might be accepted by some but no to me Plonker. Whow on earth can you say that " WE DO NOT RECOGNIZE. .....
Who the hell is this " WE "
YOU ARE MAKING A FOOL OF YOUR SELF ON THE VERY THREAD THAT EXPOSED YOU WITHOUT A SINGLE SUPPORTER.
Your assessment on the Syrian conflict is ludicrous and damn right stupid. Now, get it in your childish head. Its not YOUR coalition, its not YOUR decision whether the coalition does business or not with Assad.

How do I know?

Well the Coalition can't. It never has! And it never will!

What stupid questions old fart!

[Paphitis]

See my post in the War on Syria thread.

All I can say is that I think there a few goodguys in the Syrian fight, when it comes to being either active as pro or anti Assad, withthe exception of the majority of the civilian population who just want a reasonable safe life. My own limited ulnderstanding was that as despots went Assad was no worse than any and better than many..ruthless with obvious opponents but not too capricious in victimising any group. His likely main fault as far as the USA was concerned was that he was anti isreali and openly supported Hezzbollah, which put him in the axis of evil. American foreign policy in the region has been a disgrace, hypocritical in the extreme in supporting various despotic rulers, and casting them off once a better option came along. Few of the benefits of the American way of life filtered through, hence serious local distrust of the USA at all levels.

Regime change through eg the last Iraq war and the Arab Spring has not been a success, mainly because there has been no credible successor with enough local support to properlly fill the space left by the departing regime. That is always a recipe for disaster. That is demonstrated in Syria by the factionalised nature of the opposition and tgat Assad retained suffucient support to survive.

The Americans might be begining to appreciate the meaning of tbe saying, "better the devil you know".

Partition is a possibility. Whther thst is on the cards, I do not know, but one may end up with Kurdish autonomous region, as in Iraq. That raises many possibiliies, not all goid.

I take your point. For those of us who believe the USA and other Western powers were at least instrumental in bringing Erdoğan to power in Turkey, and looking at his dictatorial leanings, it is pretty hypocritical for them to demand that a dictator like Assad go.

America has long been selective in the dictatorial regimes they chose to support and doubly hypocrtical by imposing dictators where they are concerned that an alternative with better democratic credentials may not toe their line.

Any examples you would like to share with us?

I think you are confusing the fact that the West is willing to let things slide as long as for a few pre-conditions are met such as:

1) if there is peace and stability, and
2) its interest are met.

[Paphitis]

See my post in the War on Syria thread.

All I can say is that I think there a few goodguys in the Syrian fight, when it comes to being either active as pro or anti Assad, withthe exception of the majority of the civilian population who just want a reasonable safe life. My own limited ulnderstanding was that as despots went Assad was no worse than any and better than many..ruthless with obvious opponents but not too capricious in victimising any group. His likely main fault as far as the USA was concerned was that he was anti isreali and openly supported Hezzbollah, which put him in the axis of evil. American foreign policy in the region has been a disgrace, hypocritical in the extreme in supporting various despotic rulers, and casting them off once a better option came along. Few of the benefits of the American way of life filtered through, hence serious local distrust of the USA at all levels.

Regime change through eg the last Iraq war and the Arab Spring has not been a success, mainly because there has been no credible successor with enough local support to properlly fill the space left by the departing regime. That is always a recipe for disaster. That is demonstrated in Syria by the factionalised nature of the opposition and tgat Assad retained suffucient support to survive.

The Americans might be begining to appreciate the meaning of tbe saying, "better the devil you know".

Partition is a possibility. Whther thst is on the cards, I do not know, but one may end up with Kurdish autonomous region, as in Iraq. That raises many possibiliies, not all goid.

I take your point. For those of us who believe the USA and other Western powers were at least instrumental in bringing Erdoğan to power in Turkey, and looking at his dictatorial leanings, it is pretty hypocritical for them to demand that a dictator like Assad go.

America has long been selective in the dictatorial regimes they chose to support and doubly hypocrtical by imposing dictators where they are concerned that an alternative with better democratic credentials may not toe their line.

Of course, if you believe it's based on principles, then it appears to be hypocritical. On the other hand, based on the premise that it's all about self-interest, then it makes sense. Russia wants to keep its Mediterranean naval base and it sees Assad as guaranteeing that, so he is a good dictator in their eyes. It baffles me as to why the West doesn't consider a secular Western-oriented Turkey to be to its advantage, but the Western ruling elites obviously continue to believe that the islamist Erdoğan serves their interests and so he is a good dictator in their eyes, even if nowadays we hear the odd sanctimonious word of disapproval from some Western leaders about Erdoğan's 'excesses'.

It's all swings and roundabouts.

The West owes Erdogan nothing and is more than willing to let him fall whenever the people of Turkey see fit for this to happen.

Basically, they don't particularly care who is in power in Turkey.

[Paphitis]

The ....General has already stated that HE would never accept anything less than Assads removal. HIS troops will see to that.

It's not our troops that will remove Assad. We don't have troops in Syria other than a few hundred Special Forces.

It is the Syrian people who are removing Assad! They will see to it that they will prevail. They can't be beaten. And with Western support, Pootin has nowhere to go because you will die before you see peace in Syria. I will die before peace is restored in Syria if Assad remains.

You've been saying that the fall of Aleppo is imminent for 6 months now. You will be a eunuch before that happens old 'boy'!



If Pootin wants to keep Syria as its client state, then it knows what it needs to do.