|
France has recalled its ambassador to Syria, with more EU countries likely to follow suit.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 12:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
In Kuwait we had several protesters outside the Syrian embassy (including a newly re-elected Parliament member) a couple of days ago. Yesterday they were outside the Russian embassy for voting no on Syrian intervention, and they're planning on doing the same outside the Chinese embassy. The new parliament is also pushing the government to expel the Syrian ambassador. FUN FACT: Someone I know insulted the son of the Ambassador once while in Kuwait, 8 years later he went to Syria and was arrested and detained at the airport for "being suspicious". Let out after 4 hours and calls were made. THE AWESOME GHOST fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Feb 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 12:58
|
|
|
Italy is joining France in recalling its ambassador to Syria, no doubt more will join them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 13:04
|
|
|
Just a question, why are countries pulling out their ambassadors now, after the conflict has been going for a year? You'd think they would have done it sooner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 13:12
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:Just a question, why are countries pulling out their ambassadors now, after the conflict has been going for a year? You'd think they would have done it sooner. Probably in response to the UN officially voting to do nothing
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 13:15
|
|
|
AJE is reporting that the Turkish Foreign Minister will be travelling to the US tomorrow to discuss Syria.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
It's a message to Syria, Russia and China. It's also a message to the international community and the Syrian people that says "We are still behind the Syrian people."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 13:19
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:Just a question, why are countries pulling out their ambassadors now, after the conflict has been going for a year? You'd think they would have done it sooner. The US pulled its whole embassy out because of the security situation (the embassy is very old and literally situated along the road), then Britian followed by pulling its ambassador out. Now everyone else is doing so to diplomatically isolate Syria and to send a message.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 15:09
|
|
|
And so it goes...quote:According to the Reuters news agency, the six-member Gulf Cooperation Coucil announced on Tuesday that they would be recalling their ambassadors from Syria. Turkey continues to call Russia and China out: quote:Speaking at party headquarters in Ankara, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister called the situation in Syria test of the world's "sincerity".
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 15:20
|
|
|
Just because the Maldives got mentioned, I must link to this amazing photograph of Malé, its capital. It's like this beautiful urban zit exploding from the sea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
edit: never mind the tertiary continuation of that line of conversation... Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Feb 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
Update from Syriaquote:Russia 'wants Arab League role'
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
It's situations like this where I see a renewed cold war, only 50 years in the future, it will be China taking the lead in opposing the US at the security council, while Russia takes China's customary secondary role.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
Four Days of Death in December, a documentary on the street violence that took place in December in Egypt. Has some very brutal imagery of beatings and shootings.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
Good Telegraph piece on why Syria is a horrible nightmare with no good solutionsquote:If anyone tells you there's an easy fix to the crisis in Syria, they're lying
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
I'm glad that Turkey seems to be adamant about a hard, ethical stance towards the atrocities occurring in Syria, but at the same time I'm disappointed that they won't clear the air on the Armenian genocide. It smacks a bit hypocritical to me. It's an issue I am willing to leave alone for now considering the Syria thing is right now, and there are lives to be saved, but nevertheless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
what exactly does russia gain by being so adamant about keeping Assad in power? i mean, yeah, they've got some sweet defense deals, but so did THE WEST re: Mubarak and after a while they just went "oh well, we'll deal with the new guys i guess". obvious distances between both cases notwithstanding, is there a reason in particular that makes it absolutely imperative for moscow to keep Assad? i mean i honestly doubt it's just a pissing match. does syria really possess such geopolitical strategic value, or is it mainly to keep Iran's Best Buddies intact?5er posted:I'm glad that Turkey seems to be adamant about a hard, ethical stance towards the atrocities occurring in Syria, but at the same time I'm disappointed that they won't clear the air on the Armenian genocide. It smacks a bit hypocritical to me. It's an issue I am willing to leave alone for now considering the Syria thing is right now, and there are lives to be saved, but nevertheless. yeah i'm really distrustful of turkey donning the banner of "Great Islamic Champion Of Liberty, Democracy And Human Rights", but so far their posture towards the Arab Spring has been... mostly decent? i mean, it sorta reeks of the insincerity of a regional power eager to show it, too, can roll with the big dogs, but can't seem to find anything particularly objectionable about their position (other than the fact they were best buds with many of the leaders in question before they fell out of international favor). correct me if i'm wrong tho, wouldn't want to fall victim of these TURKISH TRICKS
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
SexyBlindfold posted:what exactly does russia gain by being so adamant about keeping Assad in power? i mean, yeah, they've got some sweet defense deals, but so did THE WEST re: Mubarak and after a while they just went "oh well, we'll deal with the new guys i guess". obvious distances between both cases notwithstanding, is there a reason in particular that makes it absolutely imperative for moscow to keep Assad? i mean i honestly doubt it's just a pissing match. does syria really possess such geopolitical strategic value, or is it mainly to keep Iran's Best Buddies intact? The Russians have a naval base in Syria. For their totally AWESOME navy. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Concerning the reason 'The West' backed the popular uprisings in places like Tunisia and Egypt and why Russia is standing strong with their buddy Assad is incredibly complex and unique to each situation. For example, in Bahrain. We supported Egypt, but not Bahrain for political reasons, despite the uprising being that calling for democratic reform. Bahrain not only hosts the US 5th(?) Naval fleet that gives us incredible strength in the Arab Gulf - a place of contention with Iran at the moment. But it's also a very close ally with Saudi Arabia, as evidence when SA sent troops and armor into Bahrain to assist in quelling the uprising. Saudi Arabia is deathly afraid that Iran will get a foothold across the gulf of Oman onto the peninsula. Egypt was sort of a Push. We had an ally in Mubarak, but the US is almost always in favor of democratic reform. There was also no stopping Egypt's revolution. Syria's relationship with Russia is much more dire. Russia would be taking a double hit in that they'll lose their ally in Assad, look bad for supporting him for so long, and the country will likely reform into a democratic system. Of course, this is a very watered down explanation of an infinitely complex situation, but I think it gives an adequate answer, I hope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
SexyBlindfold posted:what exactly does russia gain by being so adamant about keeping Assad in power? I can only imagine, stability. Not pretty, but maybe they imagine it is better to keep the known (however horrible) entity, than face the additional uncertainty in the region.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
Their only port in the region is in Syria. They don't care about Assad, Syria itself or its people. The Russians just want a presence in the region and they don't think any UN-backed post-Assad goverment will let them stay there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:Their only port in the region is in Syria. They don't care about Assad, Syria itself or its people. The Russians just want a presence in the region and they don't think any UN-backed post-Assad goverment will let them stay there. Certainly they will not now, anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
Russia is stuck between a rock and a hard place. I'm sure they've been following events closely and when the Syria uprising began they thought it wasn't going anywhere and probably said "Meh, just shoot a few protesters and be done with it". Now Syria has, but because they probably authorised Assad to use the methods he has, because lets face it their own conduct in recent years isn't any better, they can't back down and condemn him now for the same reason China doesn't want to abandon North Korea. If Russia stabbed Assad in the back they wouldn't have been able to excert any infuence in the region because they'd be seen as a bad ally. But because they didn't and the situation is so out of hand now they're going to lose the port anyway and they know it, but they're not willing to lose face to potential allies so they're protecting Assad for as long as possible to make sure they will still be able to negotiate deals in the future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
5er posted:I'm glad that Turkey seems to be adamant about a hard, ethical stance towards the atrocities occurring in Syria, but at the same time I'm disappointed that they won't clear the air on the Armenian genocide. It smacks a bit hypocritical to me. It's an issue I am willing to leave alone for now considering the Syria thing is right now, and there are lives to be saved, but nevertheless. I don't know, Turkey's stance seems to be saying "We really think you should stop doing this or else" over and over without taking any concrete action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 18:48
|
|
Xandu posted:I don't know, Turkey's stance seems to be saying "We really think you should stop doing this or else" over and over without taking any concrete action. Hosting and aiding armed rebels is pretty concrete to me, though.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
az jan jananam posted:Hosting and aiding armed rebels is pretty concrete to me, though. Rebels don't just magically arm themselves either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
Is Turkey arming them? I have my doubts. They're hosting the SNC officials, but other than the refugee camps (which are admittedly a very good thing), it's not as though the FSA is based out of Turkey.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-egypt-usa-idUSTRE8161F420120207 Egypt will likely back off the NGO dispute, because of the billions in aid at stake. http://www.arabist.net/blog/2012/2/7/i-hold-these-facts-about-mb-and-scaf-to-be-self-evident.html Some good points about the MB and SCAF.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
I'd imagine the opposition is able to acquire arms through illegal smuggling but I doubt they have any readily available access to weapons. Also the arms industry is one of the remaining things keeping Russia's economy going right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Is Turkey arming them? I have my doubts. They're hosting the SNC officials, but other than the refugee camps (which are admittedly a very good thing), it's not as though the FSA is based out of Turkey. They ended up heavily armed very, very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
I'd dispute calling them heavily armed. I've seen occasional reports of captured tanks, but by most accounts they only have small arms, which can easily be obtained by defected soldiers, from looting from encounters with the Syrian Army, and smuggling from Lebanon, whose Sunni population is sympathetic to the revolution. They appear to be heavily outgunned in all respects. For example http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/syrian-homs-siege-genocidal-say-residents?newsfeed=true posted:Activists said the opposition fighters from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) were no match for their well-armed government adversaries, equipped with tanks, fighter planes, and Russian heavy weapons. "The soldiers who defected from the army only have Kalashnikovs. How can you face a battalion with a Kalashnikov?" Sufian asked. "Tanks have been captured, but they were very exposed, and the regime could easily target them. It's a target you cannot hide."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
Nasrallah gave a speech.http://nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=362037 posted:- Concerning the Syrian situation. Our position is based on a vision, and if anyone wants to address this issue with us, they must address it logically and not by appealing to our emotions. edit: Oops, speech was/is still happening, I'll keep editing in the rest of it. Xandu fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Feb 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I'd dispute calling them heavily armed. I've seen occasional reports of captured tanks, but by most accounts they only have small arms, which can easily be obtained by defected soldiers, from looting from encounters with the Syrian Army, and smuggling from Lebanon, whose Sunni population is sympathetic to the revolution. They appear to be heavily outgunned in all respects. I'm not saying that they are better armed than the Syrian government, just that they are very well armed (from the pictures and video I've seen) for a hastily put together army. Most insurrections struggle to put a gun with more than a magazine or two of ammunition in the hands of half of their followers/fighters, even with foreign support.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Oh Nasrallah you really could have done better with this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:I'm not saying that they are better armed than the Syrian government, just that they are very well armed (from the pictures and video I've seen) for a hastily put together army. Most insurrections struggle to put a gun with more than a magazine or two of ammunition in the hands of half of their followers/fighters, even with foreign support. well i haven't seen enough material to give an opinion on exactly how well-armed the rebels are, but i'd point out that in the syrian case the soldiers actually have political/social motives for switching sides other than just "not wanting to kill civilians", so i'd assume the proportion of the rebel army comprised of defected military would be larger than in libya, for example. there could be a million other factors though so it's a pretty wild guess. J33uk posted:Oh Nasrallah you really could have done better with this. this isn't meant to be a diss on middle eastern political leaders but i've noticed that for some reason most of their speeches take the form of "well some people are saying everything is on fire but i don't think so!!" also: what exactly is hezbollah's position on syria? i mean i know assad's regime serves as a vehicle for iran's support of the group and hezbollah in general terms is p. cozy qith the syrian regime, but what exactly is their position on the syrian aspirations regarding lebanon? i mean, it's not as if assad's secular regime supports hezbollah out of sincere concern for their shi'a brethren as much as for the idea of de-estabilizing and proxy-bombing their way into Greater Syria SexyBlindfold fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Feb 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
After doing a little research on Hezbollah's history (I wont deny I know very little of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict), his 'support' of the Syrian government seems more like reluctant support. Syria and Iran have had long standing political and military assistance toward's Hezbollah's ambitions fighting Israel as their common Jewish enemy. Instead, Syria is fighting it's own people. Reluctant support in the way like if you found out your best friend abuses his girlfriend. He's still your friend, but man, that's hosed up - you should really cut that poo poo out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
SexyBlindfold posted:
It's complicated, but let's just put it this way. When some people were protesting against Syria's presence in Lebanon in 2005 (they had been occupying the country since 1990), Hezballah helped to organize a very large counterprotest in favor of Syria. edit: Syria's importance to Hezballah has dropped a lot since 2005, and Iran is now their key ally and financier, so Hezballah's loyalty to Syria isn't absolute, but it's strong enough that they still hasn't dropped their support for the regime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
Sivias posted:After doing a little research on Hezbollah's history (I wont deny I know very little of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict), his 'support' of the Syrian government seems more like reluctant support. Syria and Iran have had long standing political and military assistance toward's Hezbollah's ambitions fighting Israel as their common Jewish enemy. Instead, Syria is fighting it's own people. It's not that anyone wants to support a regime like Assad's, it's just that Hezbollah are insufferable realists, and this is the face of realpolitik.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
also re: syria, i don't think i've seen any mention about the situation of non-allawi shi'as. are they kind of in the fence, or do they side with the regime for pretty much the same reasons that the allawis and christians do? (i.e. fear of sunni hegemony) or, like, does "allawi" work as kind of a catch-all term for "shi'a" in syria? i'm just saying because the rebel's position is always presented as specifically anti-allawi
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
No, it's not a catchall term, there's just not that many other Shias in Syria. The non-Alawi Shia are Ismailis and they're also pretty connected to the government from what I understand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 21:15
|
|