Jump to content
Intellectual Resistance

Bashar al-Assad - 'Barrel Bombs'

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 2/27/2018 at 3:50 PM, Intellectual Resistance said:

Imam al-Hussain (as) would not have dropped a Barrel Bomb on a busy residential area where a terrorist was firing bombs from the roof top, knowing full well the bomb has been banned internationally, is indiscriminate and will send shrapnel and projectiles around an enormous radius, killing and butchering innocent men, women and children. 

You dont know that.

If your town was taking over by wahabis and they are cutting heads daily, then perhaps it is better to drop barrel bombs to save more lives.

Again, I have noticed that there is this flaw in your logic. You say Assad is not perfect and his strategy is causing problems. No one disputes that. 

However, as I mentioned to you before, the alternative is to do nothing, let the wahabis take over and cut heads on an industrial scale. You seem to not factor that into your "analysis" and instead focus on Assad's imperfections.

I do wonder if ISIS et al had taken over Syria, the people like you, what would you say then?

What would you say to the people of Aleppo who now live in freedom and security, if Assad and his allies hadnt cleaned the area of the western backed wahabis, they would still be cutting heads and eating prisoners. Would you prefer that? 

War is horrible and best avoided, but if you have an enemy that wont stop unless you destroy them, what choice is there?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iraqi_shia said:

 

I do wonder if ISIS et al had taken over Syria, the people like you, what would you say then?

What would you say to the people of Aleppo who now live in freedom and security, if Assad and his allies hadnt cleaned the area of the western backed wahabis, they would still be cutting heads and eating prisoners. Would you prefer that? 

War is horrible and best avoided, but if you have an enemy that wont stop unless you destroy  them, what choice is there?

 

I am willing to bet any money that the same people would constantly complain about Iran and Hezbollah not doing enough to save Syria.

Edited by shiaman14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iraqi_shia said:

You dont know that.

If your town was taking over by wahabis and they are cutting heads daily, then perhaps it is better to drop barrel bombs to save more lives.

Again, I have noticed that there is this flaw in your logic. You say Assad is not perfect and his strategy is causing problems. No one disputes that. 

However, as I mentioned to you before, the alternative is to do nothing, let the wahabis take over and cut heads on an industrial scale. You seem to not factor that into your "analysis" and instead focus on Assad's imperfections.

I do wonder if ISIS et al had taken over Syria, the people like you, what would you say then?

What would you say to the people of Aleppo who now live in freedom and security, if Assad and his allies hadnt cleaned the area of the western backed wahabis, they would still be cutting heads and eating prisoners. Would you prefer that? 

War is horrible and best avoided, but if you have an enemy that wont stop unless you destroy them, what choice is there?

 

Salam Brother,

I think the conflict is more complex than extremist Salafis taking over and cutting heads. Take into consideration many of the cities these terrorist groups take over are predominantly Sunni, and within these cities, while they have committed crimes against citizens, many citizens often just get along with their lives if they don't interfere or side with Assad. So what these groups do is either capitalise on anti-Assad sentiment among some populations they embed themselves in, or fight in these areas anyway, leaving most Sunnis to themselves (Syria is predominantly Sunni).  It isn't a case where my town is taken over and terrorists are aimlessly trying to behead everyone. This conflict is more complex than that. 

You have presented a dichotomy here: Either accept Assad using indiscriminate weapons banned by the UN for disproportionately killing civilians and being crude, accept his war crimes and very reckless manner of taking out terrorists, or the alternative is just let terrorists or extremist Salafis take over. Why is there no third option, we accept they will use human shields, we know force is necessary, but we don't use indiscriminate weapons and drop them in civilian neighbourhoods hoping we detribalise the whole area and target terrorists in the process? Why do we not look at the methods used and find a way that is more humane, that is far better to sparing civilian life?

Again, mentioning ISIS taking over Syria is a red-herring. ISIS are not the main opposition here, and the entire world grouped together to take them out. They are a spent force more or less, and whatever remains of them would have never taken over Syria, because even other terrorist groups that are more moderate were fighting them.

I want to make it clear - Assad is the lesser evil, and if he were to lose and groups like al-Nusra, Ahrar Asham, Jaysh al Islam et al were to gain power and exact an imperialistic, gulf-state , extremist Salafi shariah shurah caliphate, it would be a far more gruesome scenario. I am not claiming one should not use force, we do not use reasonable means to fight these terrorists.

It isn't a recklessly use force and kill scores of civilians , or let these groups take control. There is a middle way, that ensures we do not use indiscriminate crude weapons, we are far more mindful about civilian life, and even if it takes longer, everything is done to spare civilian life while finding a way to get at the terrorists. If it takes longer, then so be it, if lives are spared. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

That's the thing - Israel can use white phosphorous, US can use depleted uranium but it barely makes the news. 

Syria could have used bows to shoot arrows and it would make the news...and of course our shias brothers would be all over it.

 

SubhanAllah.

What Yazid, the US, or Israel do is of no concern to us , nor should it be a guidance about how much we should also be able to get away with. 

As i have said before, to non-Shia audiences (and Shia audiences to an extent too) i have spent a lot of time exposing mainstream media lies, debunking exaggerators, and trying to bring genuine facts - or what we can best discern as the most accurate positions to the table. 

However in my analysis, and my research, i have come to an inner realisation i can not cry for al-Hussain (as) yet remain silent when i know that Assad is using reckless force, and carelessly slaughtering scores of innocent men, women and children, even if it be to take out terrorists. There is a better way, a more humane way to use strong, legitimate force, but find a trade off where much more is done to preserve life. 

Using indiscriminate weapons on civilian neighbourhoods in the hope to raze down any town with terrorists in there based on virtually no intelligence is not ethical, or humane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When i debate Salafis or sectarian leaning Sunnis, or even secular types, i just can't understand how on earth they refuse to remain so hard-headed at clear evidence of the reality of some of these so-called 'moderate' rebels, and exaggerations made by the mainstream media. However, i've come to realise this is one of the ills of humanity, infecting all groups, even the ones who wave the banner of al-Hussain (as).

No-one is willing to take a step back, and look at the situation through clear and objective mind, and being truthful, being brutally honest about what is going on, even if it makes groups we back look bad. 

On the day of judgement when we see scores of innocent men, women and children who were slaughtered by reckless attempts , often random, to kill terrorists by Assad, what will we say? I'm not going to risk my hereafter out of partisan bias. Truth is truth, justice is justice, whatever side it is on. 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

there is no credible evidence from objective sources that he has deliberately targeted civilians.

He wouldn't kill people on purpose, that's stupid, but when you think about it logically and rationally, if an army is short on resources, do you not think they would use tactics that are at a lower cost and do not do enough to ensure that civilian casualties are minimized? From a moral perspective as well, I don't think the Syrian government has acted in a way that would convince me they are not using tactics that are not doing everything to ensure civilians do not get harmed. I'll give you a personal anecdote here; I know of a Syrian Shia, he hates the rebels needless to say, but he told me that the baathist security service is so vicious that he felt hesitant to criticise the government even in the West, because he didn't know who could/could not be a spy and inform the authorities in Syria, which would put his family there in deep trouble. He stated that this had happened in the past on numerous occasions. I don't have any reason to disbelieve him, it's not like he supports the rebels, and this could literally be a question of life and death for his family that's also Shia. A government which goes to this length to ensure there is no voice of dissent against them, what makes you think if they were in a situation where there were 10 scumbags and 100 civilians that they wouldn't carry out a strike in such a case? And where do you draw the line in such a case, how many civilians? Civilian casualties are an unfortunate reality of modern warfare but we must do absolutely everything to ensure minimal losses, the question is has the Syrian government acted morally in the past to have you believe they would do this? In my book no! The humanitarian zones are a good step, but still, you should expect that the terrorists will do everything to ensure the innocent people can't leave, so if they don't allow them to leave does it then legitimate bombing at whatever cost in terms of human lives?

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Salam Brother,

I think the conflict is more complex than extremist Salafis taking over and cutting heads. Take into consideration many of the cities these terrorist groups take over are predominantly Sunni, and within these cities, while they have committed crimes against citizens, many citizens often just get along with their lives if they don't interfere or side with Assad. So what these groups do is either capitalise on anti-Assad sentiment among some populations they embed themselves in, or fight in these areas anyway, leaving most Sunnis to themselves (Syria is predominantly Sunni).  It isn't a case where my town is taken over and terrorists are aimlessly trying to behead everyone. This conflict is more complex than that. 

You have presented a dichotomy here: Either accept Assad using indiscriminate weapons banned by the UN for disproportionately killing civilians and being crude, accept his war crimes and very reckless manner of taking out terrorists, or the alternative is just let terrorists or extremist Salafis take over. Why is there no third option, we accept they will use human shields, we know force is necessary, but we don't use indiscriminate weapons and drop them in civilian neighbourhoods hoping we detribalise the whole area and target terrorists in the process? Why do we not look at the methods used and find a way that is more humane, that is far better to sparing civilian life?

Again, mentioning ISIS taking over Syria is a red-herring. ISIS are not the main opposition here, and the entire world grouped together to take them out. They are a spent force more or less, and whatever remains of them would have never taken over Syria, because even other terrorist groups that are more moderate were fighting them.

I want to make it clear - Assad is the lesser evil, and if he were to lose and groups like al-Nusra, Ahrar Asham, Jaysh al Islam et al were to gain power and exact an imperialistic, gulf-state , extremist Salafi shariah shurah caliphate, it would be a far more gruesome scenario. I am not claiming one should not use force, we do not use reasonable means to fight these terrorists.

It isn't a recklessly use force and kill scores of civilians , or let these groups take control. There is a middle way, that ensures we do not use indiscriminate crude weapons, we are far more mindful about civilian life, and even if it takes longer, everything is done to spare civilian life while finding a way to get at the terrorists. If it takes longer, then so be it, if lives are spared. 

Walaikum Salam,

I appreciate its not simple. However I think your really misunderstanding the situation.This  "third option" :

Quote

Why is there no third option, we accept they will use human shields, we know force is necessary, but we don't use indiscriminate weapons and drop them in civilian neighbourhoods hoping we detribalise the whole area and target terrorists in the process? Why do we not look at the methods used and find a way that is more humane, that is far better to sparing civilian life?

 

This simply doesnt exist. Syria doesnt have the option of advanced guided weaponry. They have what they have. They are fighting for survival. 

Its akin to you saying, if someone attacks you, try to not to break any furniture when you fight for your life. They are going to use anything and everything to survive.

Quote

Again, mentioning ISIS taking over Syria is a red-herring. ISIS are not the main opposition here, and the entire world grouped together to take them out. They are a spent force more or less, and whatever remains of them would have never taken over Syria, because even other terrorist groups that are more moderate were fighting them.

No my friend, you missed out an important point. "Now" they are not the main opposition. At one point they had more fighters, land and power than most countries. But, because of the resistance, they are now destroyed. 

If the same pressure was not applied to al nusra and all the other garbage , then they would be big and powerful as well.

We cant wait for the problem to be a massacre before we apply force. 

I think you are right though, that obviously everything that can be done to protect civilians is done. I think however what is being done has not reached you or the mainstream press about the lengths that have been taken to protect and avoid civilian casualties. Take allepo for example, the goverment arranged buses to take the civilians and wounded out. The rebels burned them and blew them up whilst the children were in them. That is what Syria is up against, people who pretend to be selling ice creams, so they can get close to the crowds of children to detonate their explosives. The Syrian army many times has allowed corridors where people can leave, cease fires, delievering aid, this goes unreported and all we hear is barrel bomb dropped here etc.

Secondly, to illustrate the bias media, we are seeing now ghouta is being surrounded and attacked. All we see in the media is blown up building and casualties in ghouta. What do you think the rebels do for the past 5 years in ghouta? just make cakes and draw pictures? They have been shelling Damascus for years, this doesnt come onto the tv screen in the west, we only see the ghouta destruction. This bias media creates bias minds.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

When i debate Salafis or sectarian leaning Sunnis, or even secular types, i just can't understand how on earth they refuse to remain so hard-headed at clear evidence of the reality of some of these so-called 'moderate' rebels, and exaggerations made by the mainstream media. However, i've come to realise this is one of the ills of humanity, infecting all groups, even the ones who wave the banner of al-Hussain (as).

No-one is willing to take a step back, and look at the situation through clear and objective mind, and being truthful, being brutally honest about what is going on, even if it makes groups we back look bad. 

My ideas, my actual views, and positions are twisted and hyperbole is used by all parties i discuss with. 

I think we are the ones who have taken a step back and providing a practical realistic option in Syria. There is no alternative, look at Libya, the people are so desperate they are jumping into the sea and they can not even swim. Half the country is controlled by salafi thugs who cut heads like they are cutting trees. But the oil is flowing and cheaply.

These events are not random or without plans. Its all coming out now, the Turks had their objectives in Syira, the Saudis, the Israelis etc Nothing happened without a foreign agent being behind it. We cant be naive and think, lets just stay out or lets just ask them to go away.

Its going to take extreme force to clean out the garbage from the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

SubhanAllah.

What Yazid, the US, or Israel do is of no concern to us , nor should it be a guidance about how much we should also be able to get away with. 

As i have said before, to non-Shia audiences (and Shia audiences to an extent too) i have spent a lot of time exposing mainstream media lies, debunking exaggerators, and trying to bring genuine facts - or what we can best discern as the most accurate positions to the table. 

I must have missed your posts about exposing " mainstream media lies, debunking exaggerators, and trying to bring genuine facts ". But you have been on SC for less than 1 year right, so I am guessing it is not on SC.

1 hour ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

However in my analysis, and my research, i have come to an inner realisation i can not cry for al-Hussain (as) yet remain silent when i know that Assad is using reckless force, and carelessly slaughtering scores of innocent men, women and children, even if it be to take out terrorists. There is a better way, a more humane way to use strong, legitimate force, but find a trade off where much more is done to preserve life.

You make it sound like you are actively on the ground in Syria conducting research and forming analysis. You use the Internet just like everyone else. Rest of us don't present it as "my analysis and my research".

Did you inner-realization or years of research come up with a better leader than Assad through today? Have you sworn to not cry Ya-Hussain until Assad is replaced?

1 hour ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Using indiscriminate weapons on civilian neighbourhoods in the hope to raze down any town with terrorists in there based on virtually no intelligence is not ethical, or humane. 

So what research did you conduct to come to the conclusion that Assad is using weapons indiscriminately and without an intelligence. Fact is that ISIS is virtually destroyed so clearly he has been discriminate and used some intelligence...my research and analysis has led me to believe this.

1 hour ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

When i debate Salafis or sectarian leaning Sunnis, or even secular types, i just can't understand how on earth they refuse to remain so hard-headed at clear evidence of the reality of some of these so-called 'moderate' rebels, and exaggerations made by the mainstream media. However, i've come to realise this is one of the ills of humanity, infecting all groups, even the ones who wave the banner of al-Hussain (as).

No-one is willing to take a step back, and look at the situation through clear and objective mind, and being truthful, being brutally honest about what is going on, even if it makes groups we back look bad. 

On the day of judgement when we see scores of innocent men, women and children who were slaughtered by reckless attempts , often random, to kill terrorists by Assad, what will we say? I'm not going to risk my hereafter out of partisan bias. Truth is truth, justice is justice, whatever side it is on. 

But don't you support Assad? You said you did.

After having taken a step back, do you have a better alternative than Assad at the moment?

I don't think I am risking my hereafter because if Allah asks me why I supported, I will simply tell Allah that Assad was better than ISIS and I was waiting for Allah to give us someone better than Assad.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Either accept Assad using indiscriminate weapons banned by the UN for disproportionately killing civilians and being crude

I'm going to say this for the last time: the UN, Doctors without Borders, Red Cross, Amnesty Internationial (who also made some BS propaganda about a prison in Syria) and all the other so-called human rights corporations are not a measure to what is allowed or not. I find it funny how you from one side decide to defend the Syrian sovereignty in front of the wahhabis and from the other side regard the UN banning the use of "barrel" bombs to be good and justful. Meanwhile you probably support the idea of the use of missiles and mortars. Again, the UN is not a measure to what is allowed or not. There are bombs worse than the supposed "barrel" bomb and nobody is condemning them. You are falling into repetitive rhetoric.

The UN, security council and all these other humanity right watches are nothing more but a tool in order to be used against certain governments and push a certain agenda. If you adhere to these UN resolutions and security council rhetoric, then do you also acknowledge that Iran has human rights problems? That the death penalty should go away in Iran? Do you think that the missile program should be put to a halt? I find it a big worry that you are standing behind words of western nations in the UN.

Again, when Bashar Ja'afari brings forth very strong arguments in the security council, nobody is able to refute them. But here you have you, supporting the baseless and void rhetoric of Nikki Haley (who is not able to refute his points by rationality) saying: "we disagree with his points". Well what are they? Why do western representatives at the security council never present strong refutations? They are unable to because of their dirty war on Syria.

Don't mix up feelings with geopolitics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Intellectual Resistance you ignored many questions that was asked to you and many arguments that was presented to you by members on this topic ( @Khomeinist's posts is one of them). You keep repeating the same old arguments every time you post, but refuse to even consider or acknowledge the reasoning or arguments of others. It seems like your beliefs are firm and set, and we are all wasting our time guiding you from your misguidance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hassan- said:

@Intellectual Resistance you ignored many questions that was asked to you and many arguments that was presented to you by members on this topic ( @Khomeinist's posts is one of them). You keep repeating the same old arguments every time you post, but refuse to even consider or acknowledge the reasoning or arguments of others. It seems like your beliefs are firm and set, and we are all wasting our time guiding you from your misguidance.

 

I've robustly addressed most of the actual arguments brought forth on this thread.  I don't respond to hyperbole or emotional rants about spreading western propaganda, which is laughable considering what i've actually spent an enormous ammount of my time in the last few years actually doing. 

People can read both sets of posts, and then make their own informed judgement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Khomeinist said:

I'm going to say this for the last time: the UN, Doctors without Borders, Red Cross, Amnesty Internationial (who also made some BS propaganda about a prison in Syria) and all the other so-called human rights corporations are not a measure to what is allowed or not. I find it funny how you from one side decide to defend the Syrian sovereignty in front of the wahhabis and from the other side regard the UN banning the use of "barrel" bombs to be good and justful. Meanwhile you probably support the idea of the use of missiles and mortars. Again, the UN is not a measure to what is allowed or not. There are bombs worse than the supposed "barrel" bomb and nobody is condemning them. You are falling into repetitive rhetoric.

I am against the use of Barrel Bombs because of an objective understanding as to how a Barrel Bomb works. The reason why the UN, HRW, and most of the international community has viewed these bombs as meeting the criteria for using those weapons which cause needless civilian deaths and suffering, is because of the experience we have as an international community having seen their use in other wars. To give you an example: the 1948 Israeli Arab-War, the Srilankan Civil war, the Sudan conflicts and even reports of Iraqi using them in Fajullah. 

As much as i agree that there has been a high level of misinformation by even human rights groups,paticularly because of their reliance on very biased and partisan sources like Syrian opposition groups, who are beholden to terrorist groups whether they will admit it or not, let us just try to be balanced and recognise that the UN is not against Barrel Bombs because they have an agenda, but because it has long been regarded as a crude weapon that disproportionately slaughters civilians. 

Are there bombs worse than Barrel Bombs? Of course. However, are there bombs better than the Barrel Bomb, that would be less indiscriminate, far more specific, and not cause reckless slaughter of civilian lives? Of course. If my mother, brothers, sisters, family members, devoted associates were in those neighbour hoods, and i knew people were dropping down indiscriminate weapons hoping they would get terrorists but turning out to kill needless scores of innocent men women and children, just how furious would i be?

If you are unaware about what makes a Barrel Bomb indiscriminate, do watch the video in the first post. 

 

45 minutes ago, Khomeinist said:

The UN, security council and all these other humanity right watches are nothing more but a tool in order to be used against certain governments and push a certain agenda. If you adhere to these UN resolutions and security council rhetoric, then do you also acknowledge that Iran has human rights problems? That the death penalty should go away in Iran? Do you think that the missile program should be put to a halt? I find it a big worry that you are standing behind words of western nations in the UN.

There is a difference between Shariah law, carried out under strict supervision by an Islamic government which has the authority and right to do so on a case by case basis,  and then throwing indiscriminate bombs over densely packed civilian neighbourhoods in the hope of killing terrorists but, just as the crude design and use of the bomb, the effects are crude, and result in needless scores of innocent men, women and children being butchered.

Iran has a right, like any country, to have its own defences. Everyone also knows Iran would never pursue a nuclear weapon, and that was just propaganda aimed to find one way or another to halt Iranian autonomy and independence as it sought to diversify its energy resources, strengthen its economy and the like.

Just because i legitimately call a spade a spade, and criticise Assad where it is due, does not now mean we observe the 'Slippery Slope' fallacy and then claim next i will be against Iran, and then pro al-Nusra, and before you know it, a fully fledged extremist.  This method of argumentation is ubiquitous, such that it recognised in text books used to dissect and hi-light common fallacies in argumentation.

 

49 minutes ago, Khomeinist said:

Again, when Bashar Ja'afari brings forth very strong arguments in the security council, nobody is able to refute them. But here you have you, supporting the baseless and void rhetoric of Nikki Haley (who is not able to refute his points by rationality) saying: "we disagree with his points". Well what are they? Why do western representatives at the security council never present strong refutations? They are unable to because of their dirty war on Syria.

Don't mix up feelings with geopolitics.

There is no doubt the US, Turkey, and other countries have generally pushed an extremely biased, misinformed, and ridiculous narrative as to what is going on in Syria. I've debunked most of that over the years. However, to then go into the other extreme and absolve Assad of any legitimate criticism, when it is so obvious he merits it, i argue is contrary to justice and reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

You make it sound like you are actively on the ground in Syria conducting research and forming analysis. You use the Internet just like everyone else. Rest of us don't present it as "my analysis and my research".

Did you inner-realization or years of research come up with a better leader than Assad through today? Have you sworn to not cry Ya-Hussain until Assad is replaced?

So what research did you conduct to come to the conclusion that Assad is using weapons indiscriminately and without an intelligence. Fact is that ISIS is virtually destroyed so clearly he has been discriminate and used some intelligence...my research and analysis has led me to believe this.

But don't you support Assad? You said you did.

After having taken a step back, do you have a better alternative than Assad at the moment?

I don't think I am risking my hereafter because if Allah asks me why I supported, I will simply tell Allah that Assad was better than ISIS and I was waiting for Allah to give us someone better than Assad.

Everyone who has an opinion performs research. Unfortunately, like you and the rest of us, i am not going to track into a war zone and perform any primary research. To claim that i need to visibly be there myself to know what has occurred, or have a good idea what has occurred means no-one would ever be able to hold any opinion on any event they themselves were not part of, or eye witness to.

There is a method we , who are not lucky - or unlucky - enough to be embroiled in the centre of war zones use, and that is critically examining sources, statements, eye-witness testimony, conflicting narratives, vested interests and forming a holistic picture taking all the evidence to account, with the hope that we can make an informed judgement as to what the best guess can be about what is going on.

Once more, this isn't between Assad and ISIS, and i have informed you about this many times - and you are aware about this. As i mentioned before, ISIS have been fighting just about everyone. They've been attacked by US led-forces, by Arab countries, by so-caled Alqaeda founded or cooperating 'moderate' terrorist rebels, as well as the Syrian Arab Army. However, where the real fighting is occurring is between Assad and these so-called 'moderate' rebels. In these regions you have densely packed populations.

Assad i have said, is a lesser evil, but as i have said on this very thread many times before, this isn't a discussion about Assad being a lesser evil - we all admit it. This isn't a discussion about how bad the alternative is - we all accept it. The idea is, among Shias who have insight already into the misinformation propagated by the mainstream, we should still be able to recognise that Assad does indeed have a lot of blood on his hands and just because he is the lesser evil does not make him immune to criticism.

You will tell Allah Assad was better than ISIS, but what will you reply if you are then told, much of the carnage wasn't between Assad and ISIS, but Assad recklessly dropping indiscriminate weapons on predominantly Sunni populations who had so-called 'moderate' non-ISIS rebels embedded in them, causing the needless butchering of scores of innocent men, women and children? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear: Before anyone says there is no war without casualty, the reality is, there is a marked difference between using indiscriminate weapons over densely packed civilian populations slaughtering scores of innocent men, women and children in the process of taking out terrorists inefficiently, and finding other means that much better protect civilian lives. 

Just because this war is indeed, against imperialism, against corruption, against al-Qaeda founded or cooperating terrorists,  does not mean we lose our reason and sense between what is right.

Mind, most Sunnis actually support these so-called moderate rebels. Many of the people who are with these so-called moderate Sunni rebels support them, and many hate them but tolerate them and get on with their lives. 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

which cause needless civilian deaths and suffering,

Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Mali and many other places are examples of how destructive missiles are used by NATO. Why is there no condemnation here? Why hasn't the UN banned the US from participating in the Syrian war after it pancaked Raqqa literally? Why has the UN which you stand behind so much not condemned the use of NATO's missiles in these countries which are INACCURATE and kill civilians? Again, hypocrisy at best.

5 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

let us just try to be balanced and recognise that the UN is not against Barrel Bombs because they have an agenda, but because it has long been regarded as a crude weapon that disproportionately slaughters civilians.

I can also assume many things. Assuming that the UN is not against BBs because of an agenda is like me assuming that the US is spreading democracy. Let's just try to be balanced and recognize that the US is fighting ISIS. Does this still suffice? You haven't refuted the point. The UN has always taken weird positions in war condemning the truth. You are again putting hope in a pro-western agenda corporation. Tomahawks are much more of a crude weapon than BBs. Let the UN first condemn those before condeming BBs.

7 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Are there bombs worse than Barrel Bombs? Of course. However, are there bombs better than the Barrel Bomb, that would be less indiscriminate, far more specific, and not cause reckless slaughter of civilian lives? Of course.

You are assuming Bashar to have an infinite amount of supplies and to have engineers that can basically bring instant birth to weapons that don't kill civilians. This is war and there is not friendly fire. There are no cheat codes to be used. Bashar has a finite amount of supplies as well as finite amounts of strategies. Do you think a 20kg BB is worse than a 100kg missile? Whoever thinks like that is delusional. Specific is a fake lie. The NATO members even admit that their missiles are inaccurate. Missiles, drone strikes and mortars do not hit with a 100% hit rate. Then again, a BB is aimed. It isn't just dropped in a kindergarten. Bashar even told interviewer that a bomb is aimed. I'm repeating: Bashar's options are limited and you do not have the knowledge to decide which option is the best one. You are not even close to such a position.

10 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

If you are unaware about what makes a Barrel Bomb indiscriminate, do watch the video in the first post.

If you are unaware about what makes standard missiles indiscriminate, I refer to you the whole history of human war after Von Braun's missile discovery.

12 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Iran has a right, like any country, to have its own defences.

Syria has a right, like any country, to have its own defences and tactics to wipe the ground with these dirty imperialists trying to reclaim their land. In war people die. This is a fact you cannot deny.

13 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Just because i legitimately call a spade a spade, and criticise Assad where it is due

You actually criticize him with the sources of the enemy which are baseless. If you are going to cherry-pick UN resolutions, then I'll also pick mine.

Your comments show that you have insufficient knowledge of battle tactics as well as the differences and usage of weaponry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Everyone who has an opinion performs research. Unfortunately, like you and the rest of us, i am not going to track into a war zone and perform any primary research. To claim that i need to visibly be there myself to know what has occurred, or have a good idea what has occurred means no-one would ever be able to hold any opinion on any event they themselves were not part of, or eye witness to.

There is a method we , who are not lucky - or unlucky - enough to be embroiled in the centre of war zones use, and that is critically examining sources, statements, eye-witness testimony, conflicting narratives, vested interests and forming a holistic picture taking all the evidence to account, with the hope that we can make an informed judgement as to what the best guess can be about what is going on.

Your research much like ours is from the Internet so I still don't get "my research". It is not your research, it is an opinion based on someone else's research. Have you really even talked to an eye-witness or a credible source? Its simply being grandiose...IMHO of course.

6 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Once more, this isn't between Assad and ISIS, and i have informed you about this many times - and you are aware about this. As i mentioned before, ISIS have been fighting just about everyone. They've been attacked by US led-forces, by Arab countries, by so-caled Alqaeda founded or cooperating 'moderate' terrorist rebels, as well as the Syrian Arab Army. However, where the real fighting is occurring is between Assad and these so-called 'moderate' rebels. In these regions you have densely packed populations.

Assad i have said, is a lesser evil, but as i have said on this very thread many times before, this isn't a discussion about Assad being a lesser evil - we all admit it. This isn't a discussion about how bad the alternative is - we all accept it. The idea is, among Shias who have insight already into the misinformation propagated by the mainstream, we should still be able to recognise that Assad does indeed have a lot of blood on his hands and just because he is the lesser evil does not make him immune to criticism.

For the umpteenth time, no one is claiming Assad to be an angel. Do you have a name that can replace Assad AND who is not a western stooge?

8 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

You will tell Allah Assad was better than ISIS, but what will you reply if you are then told, much of the carnage wasn't between Assad and ISIS, but Assad recklessly dropping indiscriminate weapons on predominantly Sunni populations who had so-called 'moderate' non-ISIS rebels embedded in them, causing the needless butchering of scores of innocent men, women and children?

So exactly did you figure the remaining rebels are 'moderate'? What do you know about them? Did you for example, that one of the main rebel groups fighting in Eastern Ghouta is Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly known as al-Nusra Front)? Are they moderate?

Fact is you can demonize Assad all day long but you still don't have alternative to replace him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Your research much like ours is from the Internet so I still don't get "my research". It is not your research, it is an opinion based on someone else's research. Have you really even talked to an eye-witness or a credible source? Its simply being grandiose...IMHO of course.

For the umpteenth time, no one is claiming Assad to be an angel. Do you have a name that can replace Assad AND who is not a western stooge?

So exactly did you figure the remaining rebels are 'moderate'? What do you know about them? Did you for example, that one of the main rebel groups fighting in Eastern Ghouta is Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly known as al-Nusra Front)? Are they moderate?

Fact is you can demonize Assad all day long but you still don't have alternative to replace him.

1. Research does not have to be primary. If i perform my own independent research on the event of Kerbala, or Ghadeer, or a civil war, it depends on how well i criticise my sources, how much of an unbiased and rational approach i use, how much research i perform, and how i can collate it all to form an accurate and holistic perspective. This is an aside , an entirely irrelevant one.

2. Once more, the argument isn't if Assad is an angel or not. Before this war, we knew him to be a dictator, like his father, though with differences. We knew who he tortured, and we knew the political suppression he placed his people under. I personal knew families that fled Syria a decade before this civil war, citing Assad as their reason.

3. I have never called them 'moderate'. This is what they have been termed by the main-stream media. Anyone who performs research will know groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar Asham, Jaysh al Islam and their ilk are not moderate. 

This isn't about finding a 'better' alternative to replacing Assad right this moment. This is about justice, and being clear we are against terrorists he is fighting but make it clear that we are not going to remain silent on his highly questionable methods of going after terrorists. That is all.

 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

3. I have never called them 'moderate'. This is what they have been termed by the main-stream media. Anyone who performs research will know groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar Asham, Jaysh al Islam and their ilk are not moderate.

You are saying ISIS is in the past and want to talk about today. Eastern Ghouta is where the primary fighting is being done. According to you:

1 hour ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

You will tell Allah Assad was better than ISIS, but what will you reply if you are then told, much of the carnage wasn't between Assad and ISIS, but Assad recklessly dropping indiscriminate weapons on predominantly Sunni populations who had so-called 'moderate' non-ISIS rebels embedded in them, causing the needless butchering of scores of innocent men, women and children?

If Assad is fighting extremist rebels today in Eastern Ghouta, then what is the problem?

For all you know, the civilians stuck in Eastern Ghouta are praying for Assad to come and save them from the extremists and Assad is obliging...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

I've robustly addressed most of the actual arguments brought forth on this thread.  I don't respond to hyperbole or emotional rants about spreading western propaganda, which is laughable considering what i've actually spent an enormous ammount of my time in the last few years actually doing. 

People can read both sets of posts, and then make their own informed judgement. 

I have to say, you are not being genuine here.

I feel like you have come here with an agenda and presented a position as if its the intellectual high ground and others are being emotional and primitive. You seem to think that we are being sectarian and will stick with "our" side no matter what. This is simply not the case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

I have to say, you are not being genuine here.

I feel like you have come here with an agenda and presented a position as if its the intellectual high ground and others are being emotional and primitive. You seem to think that we are being sectarian and will stick with "our" side no matter what. This is simply not the case.

 

I'm definitely being true to myself. Anyone who knows me is fully aware i have robustly criticised the terrorists/ so-called 'moderate' rebels for years, spending a lot of my life over the last few years doing so. Having said that, if i see wrong on the side of Assad worthy of condemnation, discussion and reflection then i have to speak out.

You , or anybody else is free to read what i wrote, what people responded, and everyone can independently analyse the strength or weakness of my arguments, and put aside what they may feel are hidden intentions - which is just speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

I'm definitely being true to myself. Anyone who knows me is fully aware i have robustly criticised the terrorists/ so-called 'moderate' rebels for years, spending a lot of my life over the last few years doing so. Having said that, if i see wrong on the side of Assad worthy of condemnation, discussion and reflection then i have to speak out.

You , or anybody else is free to read what i wrote, what people responded, and everyone can independently analyse the strength or weakness of my arguments, and put aside what they may feel are hidden intentions - which is just speculation.

Links please...

for all your years of research and analysis, you have yet to provide a better alternative to Assad. If you don't have a better alternative, then it means you are accepting Assad as the best leader for the Syrian people, as despicable as he may be, for the time being at least. Welcome to what we've been saying. Instead of years of research and analysis, we could have told you this for free.

I don't mean to offend but your stance has always been to undermine the shia. To what end, Allah only knows.

Edited by shiaman14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Links please...

for all your years of research and analysis, you have yet to provide a better alternative to Assad. If you don't have a better alternative, then it means you are accepting Assad as the best leader for the Syrian people, as despicable as he may be, for the time being at least. Welcome to what we've been saying. Instead of years of research and analysis, we could have told you this for free.

I don't mean to offend but your stance has always been to undermine the shia. To what end, Allah only knows.

I will say this respectfully, but you should not be repeating this, when i have made it so evidently clear this is not a discussion about an alternative to Assad as we are all in agreement Assad is a much better alternative to Al-Qaeda backed, linked, or supporting 'rebels'. Once more, as i have tried to make clear many times, the precise reason for this thread is to ensure that, despite Assad being the lesser evil, we do not remain quiet when we see him also responsible for things that are morally questionable. As followers of Ale Muhammed (asws) it is our duty to speak out against injustice, wherever it may be from. 

Once again, emphasising i have been performing this research for years (hundreds of hours in total), is so people are aware, whether they agree with me or not, i am well aware of the nuances of this war, and the mainstream media propaganda.

Lastly, your claim is wholly unsubstantiated. I have bore the brunt of enormous hate from Salafis and Sunnis for my stances, particularly my stance on Syria, speaking out for years when many either remained silent or were apathetical. I have, and will always support the cause of Muhammed and ale Muhammed (asws) so long as Allah allows me the chance to. I will always defend Shias when we are right, and when we may have issues, i will ensure that i discuss them in a civil manner, because when you care about the image of a group, about other parties that represent you as a group, you will then raise issues to morally questionable things done in your name.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

I will say this respectfully, but you should not be repeating this, when i have made it so evidently clear this is not a discussion about an alternative to Assad as we are all in agreement Assad is a much better alternative to Al-Qaeda backed, linked, or supporting 'rebels'. Once more, as i have tried to make clear many times, the precise reason for this thread is to ensure that, despite Assad being the lesser evil, we do not remain quiet when we see him also responsible for things that are morally questionable. As followers of Ale Muhammed (asws) it is our duty to speak out against injustice, wherever it may be from. 

Once again, emphasising i have been performing this research for years (hundreds of hours in total), is so people are aware, whether they agree with me or not, i am well aware of the nuances of this war, and the mainstream media propaganda.

Explain to me how this conversation goes. Something like, "Assad is one of the worst people to ever live in the World and he will definitely go to hell but he is the best person to lead Syria so he must stay in power". Is that an accurate summary of the entire 5 pages?

23 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Lastly, your claim is wholly unsubstantiated. I have bore the brunt of enormous hate from Salafis and Sunnis for my stances, particularly my stance on Syria, speaking out for years when many either remained silent or were apathetical. I have, and will always support the cause of Muhammed and ale Muhammed (asws) so long as Allah allows me the chance to. I will always defend Shias when we are right, and when we may have issues, i will ensure that i discuss them in a civil manner, because when you care about the image of a group, about other parties that represent you as a group, you will then raise issues to morally questionable things done in your name.

From your 937 posts, you are either the biggest victim or the best thing to grace shias or ShiaChat.

Anyway, this is not about you or me but the people of Syria. You can complain all day long about a thousand ways in which Assad is bad and at the end of the day you will still say, "but he is the best option for Syria right now".

The rest of us just save our time and simply say "Assad is bad but he is the best option for Syria right now".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Explain to me how this conversation goes. Something like, "Assad is one of the worst people to ever live in the World and he will definitely go to hell but he is the best person to lead Syria so he must stay in power". Is that an accurate summary of the entire 5 pages?

This is a Straw-Man.

My actual argument: Assad is the best out of a a group of dictators who rule the ME. His foreign policy has been his strong point , and his country have legitimately been targeted by terrorists and other countries, who sought to destabilise it for their own political/ geopolitical gain. However in combating terrorists, he himself has used questionable methods, like well known indiscriminate bombs, and the like , which is considered a war crime to use because of its disproportionate effect on civilians. He has behaved in a manner at times, even after going for terrorists who do use human shields and embedded themselves questionable, a reckless behaviour to civilians, and i strongly believer more care should have been taken. On the whole, Assad is indeed a dictator, but that is a problem for the Syrian people to deal with. As followers of the Ahlulbayt, despite him being the lesser evil, we can not remain silent when he does morally questionable things, and call a spade a spade, and speak out against injustice wherever it is.

If we do not speak out, we as Shias will forever be remembered as people who remained silent when great, morally questionable tragedies were occurring. 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×