Canada "ready to go to war against syria" press reports...

[dre]

Is there a point behind where the server network is located for MLW? Did I miss something in this side debate over nothing?

Its just one of his pathetic attempts to troll.

[DogOnPorch]

Its just one of his pathetic attempts to troll.

Naturally, Canada would have invented the internet on it's own...given enough decades.

[dre]

Naturally, Canada would have invented the internet on it's own...given enough decades.

More trolling with no relevance to the thread what-so-ever.

[DogOnPorch]

More trolling with no relevance to the thread what-so-ever.

Unlike your wee smiley faces which mean...mean....well what do they mean in relationship to Syria?

As an aside, there's some video going around of the FSA boys slowly killing a dude with pocket knives. I mean SLOWLY. Perhaps we could discuss who's supplying the knives....

[scribblet]

This is going to war?

Yikes, they had me worried for a minute

Would this also come under the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine Canada is signatory to.

[scribblet]

I'm not sure that Canada should get involved in anything if this is what we would be helping. Are these people really the 'good guys'. One of other reported atrocities.

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2GeNQ7yeB

Syrian rebels beheaded a Christian man and fed his body to dogs, according to a nun who says the West is ignoring atrocities committed by Islamic extremists.

The nun said taxi driver Andrei Arbashe, 38, was kidnapped after his brother was heard complaining that fighters against the ruling regime behaved like bandits.

She said his headless corpse was found by the side of the road, surrounded by hungry dogs. He had recently married and was soon to be a father.

Edited January 3, 2013 by scribblet

[DogOnPorch]

As mentioned, there's tons of video/photos of the so-called good guys being murderous scum. The ever present cell phone...

[GostHacked]

I'm not sure that Canada should get involved in anything if this is what we would be helping. Are these people really the 'good guys'. One of other reported atrocities.

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2GeNQ7yeB

Syrian rebels beheaded a Christian man and fed his body to dogs, according to a nun who says the West is ignoring atrocities committed by Islamic extremists.

The nun said taxi driver Andrei Arbashe, 38, was kidnapped after his brother was heard complaining that fighters against the ruling regime behaved like bandits.

She said his headless corpse was found by the side of the road, surrounded by hungry dogs. He had recently married and was soon to be a father.

FSA was partially if not fully armed, funded and trained by NATO. They used Turkey as a launchpad for operations into Syria. With known Al-Queda among them and other members of known terrorist groups.

[DogOnPorch]

FSA was partially if not fully armed, funded and trained by NATO. They used Turkey as a launchpad for operations into Syria. With known Al-Queda among them and other members of known terrorist groups.

We already had this wee discussion. Or is your needle just skipping? The video and photographic evidence coming from the battlefields shows almost ALL Russian or copies of Russian weapons.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Free%20Syrian%20Army&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=qKPlULqLI-ejiAKMn4CwDw&biw=1353&bih=652&sei=qqPlULj8O63SiALhgoD4Dw

[GostHacked]

We already had this wee discussion. Or is your needle just skipping? The video and photographic evidence coming from the battlefields shows almost ALL Russian or copies of Russian weapons.

https://www.google.c...8O63SiALhgoD4Dw

Right, just because they are not using NATO gear, that is your only point, which has already been addressed and thrown out.

You have been proven wrong.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/22/syria-free-army-turkey-command.html

The leaders of the rebel Free Syrian Army said Saturday they have moved their command centre from Turkey to Syria with the aim of uniting rebels and speeding up the fall of President Bashar Assad's regime.

Rebels will continue to operate in Turkey

In the past few months, rebels have been able to capture wide swaths of territory along the Turkish border and three border crossing points on the frontier, which has allowed them to ferry both material and people to help in the fight to oust Assad. The rebels also have seized control of several neighbourhoods in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo, the country's largest and commercial capital, in weeks of bloody fighting.

Despite the announcement that the FSA's command centre has been shifted to Syria, the rebels will continue to rely on Turkey, which has been one of the bases for fighters and supplies flowing back and forth in.

Who said they needed to be supplied with NATO weapons anyways?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100159613/syrian-rebels-say-turkey-is-arming-and-training-them/

Rebel sources in Hatay told me last night that not only is Turkey supplying light arms to select battalion commanders, it is also training Syrians in Istanbul. Men from the unit I was embedded with were vetted and called up by Turkish intelligence in the last few days and large consignments of AK-47s are being delivered by the Turkish military to the Syrian-Turkish border. No one knows where the guns came from originally, but no one much cares.

Turkey is supplying the stuff, and Turkey is part of NATO, hence NATO is arming/funding/training the terrorists known as the Free Syrian Army.

[DogOnPorch]

Turkey does not use AK-47s. Again, photographs do not support your claims.

[GostHacked]

Turkey does not use AK-47s. Again, photographs do not support your claims.

I've proven that the FSA is being armed, funded and trained by NATO. You have nothing to counter claim it. Nothing.

[DogOnPorch]

I've proven that the FSA is being armed, funded and trained by NATO. You have nothing to counter claim it. Nothing.

No actual visual evidence. Where are these NATO armed Syrian soldiers? Where's the NATO hardware? Not seeing it. But...there's the usual piles of Russian, Chinese, Iranian, etc weapons and equipment. Perhaps you can show how Russia is in bed with NATO on this and is supplying NATO who supplies the 'rebels'. Iran-Contra II.

[GostHacked]

No actual visual evidence. Where are these NATO armed Syrian soldiers? Where's the NATO hardware? Not seeing it. But...there's the usual piles of Russian, Chinese, Iranian, etc weapons and equipment. Perhaps you can show how Russia is in bed with NATO on this and is supplying NATO who supplies the 'rebels'. Iran-Contra II.

You are grasping at things now. I have shown that the FSA is being backed by NATO. That is clear and apparent. Can you counter my argument in any fashion with anything substantial to show that I am wrong? I'll wait.

Edited January 3, 2013 by GostHacked

[Signals.Cpl]

We already had this wee discussion. Or is your needle just skipping? The video and photographic evidence coming from the battlefields shows almost ALL Russian or copies of Russian weapons.

https://www.google.c...8O63SiALhgoD4Dw

Just to point out something, there are factories in NATO countries in eastern Europe that have the right to build copies of the AK family of weapons as well as a number of other Russian weapon systems. As well a number of NATO members being former Warsaw pact members have substantial number of Soviet-era weapon systems that are in storage which means that NATO has access to the weapons... I am not arguing as to wether NATO is supporting the rebels or not, but I am stating that NATO has the means to support the rebels with Russian weapon systems.

[Signals.Cpl]

Turkey does not use AK-47s. Again, photographs do not support your claims.

There are at least 13 NATO members with access to Russian made weapons or copies of said weapons and most of those nations are currently using or have recently switched and have thousands if not millions of those weapons in storage.

[DogOnPorch]

There are at least 13 NATO members with access to Russian made weapons or copies of said weapons and most of those nations are currently using or have recently switched and have thousands if not millions of those weapons in storage.

Do you truly believe that we have an Iran-Contra ver 2.0, then? That the US is the culprit behind this Syrian civil war, etc as Mr Gosthacked would like us to believe? I'm not buying it. But some might.

[Signals.Cpl]

Do you truly believe that we have an Iran-Contra ver 2.0, then? That the US is the culprit behind this Syrian civil war, etc as Mr Gosthacked would like us to believe? I'm not buying it. But some might.

I don't think the two situations are that similar, and also just because they are not receiving Western equipment does not mean that they are not receiving aid from NATO as almost 50% of NATO has known stockpiles of Soviet era weapons. The argument you presented was that they were not receiving NATO weapons and that was your proof which incidentally means that you have no proof to support your position other than personal beliefs.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't think the two situations are that similar, and also just because they are not receiving Western equipment does not mean that they are not receiving aid from NATO as almost 50% of NATO has known stockpiles of Soviet era weapons. The argument you presented was that they were not receiving NATO weapons and that was your proof which incidentally means that you have no proof to support your position other than personal beliefs.

Meh...I'm going by history. The former Soviet Union and then Russia has supplied Syria since the 1960s. I really doubt there's a shortage of Russian equipment in Syria. But, if we wish to indulge in probabilities of a lesser sort...sure...Bulgaria might be passing AK-47s, T-72s, Sam-7s, RPGs, etc to the FSA. Not sure WHY or even how...but I'll assume states like Bulgaria...Lithuania...Poland (et al) are getting something big for this supposed service of giving their reserve stocks of Soviet gear to to the Syrian rebels for apparently...nothing. Any clues as to what they might be getting? New US gear for supplying the less than friendly FSA?

[Signals.Cpl]

Meh...I'm going by history. The former Soviet Union and then Russia has supplied Syria since the 1960s. I really doubt there's a shortage of Russian equipment in Syria. But, if we wish to indulge in probabilities of a lesser sort...sure...Bulgaria might be passing AK-47s, T-72s, Sam-7s, RPGs, etc to the FSA. Not sure WHY or even how...but I'll assume states like Bulgaria...Lithuania...Poland (et al) are getting something big for this supposed service of giving their reserve stocks of Soviet gear to to the Syrian rebels for apparently...nothing. Any clues as to what they might be getting? New US gear for supplying the less than friendly FSA?

Those nations have close relations with the US, they are also receiving support in training and equipping their forces as well as different forms of aid or trade advantages, the new members from Easter Europe are proportionally more willing to support the US than many of the more established NATO members. The advantages they receive could be anywhere from economic, trade or plain old military aid and in this case it doesn't matter which one it is all that matters is that NATO has the means to get and deploy the weapons to Syrian rebels, what smaller nations in NATO are getting out of it is irrelevant, it could be new equipment or it could be the US buying the weapons thus they make money on equipment that might have had to destroy at some point down the road.

[DogOnPorch]

Those nations have close relations with the US, they are also receiving support in training and equipping their forces as well as different forms of aid or trade advantages, the new members from Easter Europe are proportionally more willing to support the US than many of the more established NATO members. The advantages they receive could be anywhere from economic, trade or plain old military aid and in this case it doesn't matter which one it is all that matters is that NATO has the means to get and deploy the weapons to Syrian rebels, what smaller nations in NATO are getting out of it is irrelevant, it could be new equipment or it could be the US buying the weapons thus they make money on equipment that might have had to destroy at some point down the road.

So...before Syria's civil war, incredibly, there were very few Russian weapons in Syria. Not enough to go around...so for some reason NATO has decided to tread on Russia's turf and supply their enemies with Russian made weapons in a sneaky* bid to remove Assad....and then what? I just don't see what the carrot is here.

* Sneaky in that they must not wish to be caught...otherwise...let the M-16s flow...eh?

[GostHacked]

So...before Syria's civil war, incredibly, there were very few Russian weapons in Syria.

You are really reaching here.

No one here has said that there were no Russian arms in Syria before this civil war. It's really not relevant to this conversation. Syria has been buying arms from Russia and China for years. Even over the past couple years Syria has taken delivery of Russian equipment that they had ordered long before this civil war started.

Not enough to go around...so for some reason NATO has decided to tread on Russia's turf and supply their enemies with Russian made weapons in a sneaky* bid to remove Assad....and then what? I just don't see what the carrot is here.

You are still hung up on them being NATO weapons, not even being able to entertain the idea that they simply don't need to be armed with NATO weapons to be armed by NATO.

I have proven that the Free Syrian Army was being trained and actually operated out of Turkey. Turkey is part of NATO, hence NATO is doing everything I said it was to help the FSA take down Assad. Knowing that a full fledged invasion of Syria is off the table (due to Russia and China being backers of Syria), and then the desperate attempt at saying it's close to midnight and Assad is going to use chemical weapons, when in turn it seems like it was the FSA were going to use chemical weapons against Assad and then blame it on Assad ... aka false flag attack.

It's not like the USA/NATO had not armed/funded/trained 'rebels' before .. right? You bring up the old Iran Contra affair as an example that the rebels were in fact armed by the west, but cannot see that the FSA is being propped up in a very similar manner. We can also point to the Muhajedeen in Afghanistan as another example.

We can also talk about how the some western countries helped one side or the other in the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s.

Are you sure you are going with history?

[Signals.Cpl]

So...before Syria's civil war, incredibly, there were very few Russian weapons in Syria. Not enough to go around...so for some reason NATO has decided to tread on Russia's turf and supply their enemies with Russian made weapons in a sneaky* bid to remove Assad....and then what? I just don't see what the carrot is here.

* Sneaky in that they must not wish to be caught...otherwise...let the M-16s flow...eh?

I never said that there were few Russian made weapons in Syria before, I ams stating that your argument being based on no NATO weapons in Syria means no NATO support is flawed simply because NATO has access to the weapons. Another thing is that Syria has had access to Russian made weapons, and since I believe that they have conscription many of the rebels are trained on Russian made weapons and weapon systems, thus sending M-16s to supply the rebels will not be too helpful because many of them had no access to training so they have to be trained by NATO troops, also seems a little cheaper arming them with Russian weapons since they are fighting an enemy with the same weapons and using the same ammunition and thus capturing a base or supply depot means they now have more weapons and ammunition rather than having weapons and ammunition that are not compatible with their weapons.

[DogOnPorch]

Your scenario relies on NATO wanting to fool somebody by using Russian weapons of which there's obviously not enough of in Syria. This despite Russia et al supplying huge amounts of these weapons for decades. Otherwise...why supply anybody? Or if you're supplying 'rebels'...why not use your own M-16s, AR-15s etc? Also, what is NATO getting for this apparent supply job of Russian made weapons via former Warsaw Pact nations...now NATO members? Oil? Justin Beiber tickets? What??

It's getting to be Moon Hoax like in complexity where a much simpler explanation is available.

[Signals.Cpl]

Your scenario relies on NATO wanting to fool somebody by using Russian weapons of which there's obviously not enough of in Syria.

Not fool, they are giving weapons that the recipients can effectively use without outside training required, also those weapons use the same ammunition as the Government forces which means that once ammunition is captured it could be reused against the government rather than thrown out. How would it make sense to arm the rebels with weapons that would have use different ammunition than the government forces?

This despite Russia et al supplying huge amounts of these weapons for decades.

But your argument was that NATO had no access to the weapons so now we are changing the tune... NATO has access and it only makes sense to give the rebels weapons that they could use or train to use without too much NATO support, as well any captured ammunition can be immediately turned on the government forces...

Otherwise...why supply anybody? Or if you're supplying 'rebels'...why not use your own M-16s, AR-15s etc?

Because the rebels might not have the best logistics in town, capturing weapons, ammunition and spare parts increases their stock of weapons while using western weapons means that NATO has to supply them and they have to supply their individual units down to the fighter, easier to gather the ammunition from the local area then to get it from the border of Turkey.

Also, what is NATO getting for this apparent supply job of Russian made weapons via former Warsaw Pact nations...now NATO members? Oil? Justin Beiber tickets? What??

What did NATO get from Libya? What did the US get from the Iraq War? Why are Iraqi forces still using predominantly Russian weapons when the US occupied them for over 7 years? Was it not enough time to train and arm them with M-16s? It has taken them now almost 10 years for Iraq to switch to M-16s even though for 7 of those years the US was occupying Iraq... What about Afghanistan? The Afghan Army only started phasing them out since 2008 years after the initial invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, why didn't they switch immediately?

It's getting to be Moon Hoax like in complexity where a much simpler explanation is available.

You are right, the simple solution is to arm the rebels with weapons they know how to use and can get the ammunition locally, arming them with western weapons that rely on supply from turkey means one push from the government in their supply lines could crush the rebels...

Edited January 3, 2013 by Signals.Cpl