What do you think about the recent turmoil with Turkey and Syria firing mortars on each other? I heard that Syria fired the first mortar that landed in a town in Turkey and killed five people. In return, Turkey fired on Syria. It seems to be a back and forth almost daily now. Do you think this will get worse?
The situation in Syria, already a humanitarian catastrophe of enormous proprtions, risks spilling over into other nations unless the UN finally get their act together to put a stop to this bloodshed. Apparently the first Syrian shell to land in Turkey went astray during the combats between rebel forces and the regime in Idleb province, right on the frontier. And , as you say Turkey retaliated by shelling Syria. The situation could spiral out of control in this area if some rapid and effective diplomacy isn't deployed. The Assad regime is already under pressure from the rebels on various fronts and has threatened to use its stock of chemical weapons "if other nations interfere".
I did not know that. I thought Syria purposely fired on innocent citizens. It's interesting to hear they didn't do this on purpose. The media sure didn't report it that way, but we all know they're biased anyway.
If Turkey decides to become serious it's bad news for Syria. First off becouse Turkey's army is the second largest armed force in the whole NATO. And the second reason is that Turkey is a NATO nation. So if Turkey goes to war with somebody all the other NATO nations have to help.
There were like two people killed when one round from Syria hit Turkey. There is no way to verify who fired that round. It could be the "rebels" for all we know. Syria had apologized. Turkey on the other hand, hit Syria for two straight days with hundreds if not thousands shells. Killing dozens Syrians. Turkey has a hand in the "rebelling". As the rebels not only get supplies from Turkey, but they also have bases inside Turkey. From the look of it, Turkey really wanted a fight, or rather the NATO really want to intervene with another "no-fly-zone" just like what they did in Libya.
I would like to know more about why they are having this armed conflict. When countries are at war it is usually a pull for power, land or natural resources. We need to know who wants what from whom? Then I can decide if the fighting is justified.
The way I see it, Syria is one of the last a few remaining governments dare to defiant U.S. led NATO. Syria is still an enemy of Israel, and Syria is an ally of Iran. Most others are under U.S. occupation already. Saudi, Kuwait, Iraq, etc. all have U.S. bases. By install a puppet government in Syria, the U.S./NATO will be able to further isolate Iran. Who doesn't love to replace all the governments of "enemies" with puppets you can control?
Now we hear the Syria side of the story. Can't wait for a poster to tell me the other side. As we all know, in most conflicts there are 3 sides to the story. Yours, mine and the truth. Which truth should I be reading?
You can't read truth off the mainstream news propaganda. They are always writing for an agenda. If they want to gain support for the government to hit another country, they will write against that country. If they want to gain support for one of the two countries in a dispute between two countries, they will write against the other one. It's that simple. Their choice of words are amazing sometimes, but often time they are obvious silly propaganda to whoever has a clear mind. Of course "the other side" of the story is that Assard is killing "peaceful" civilians which led to the rebelling. If that is true, why would the death toll on the government soldiers that high? Almost 1 in 4 death in Syria is a government soldier or a police. Yes, many civilians are caught in crossfire, but the media blamed all of it on Assard. Like the rebels have such accurate aim and they never hurt a fly... How would you call the people who rush into a local police station and shot most of the cops before executing the remaining a few captured ones? Terrorists!
Groundhog day, Vash. The death toll of government soldiers is so high because the population just finally got fed up of being shot at in peaceful demonstrations and decided it was time for some reasonable payback. Any population would do the same if they were being massacred. What you are suggesting is that a rebellion is not morally correct because it has the impertinence to actually kill people who are repressing it: a high death toll of regime forces makes the rebellion "illegitimate" The weapons are principally being supplied over the Turkish border, paid for by Sunni Islamic states in the Gulf who are deeply suspicious of Shiite Syria and the influence of big brother Shiite Islamic Iran. The fight between Shiites and Sunnies goes back to the 6th century AD and shows no sign of stopping. Justa question here... what on earth leads you to think the Syrian regime is legitimate? Assad's father seized control of the nation in a military coup back in 1970 and imposed a Soviet type of regime. Which of course means no free elections, so the Assad dynasty can safely pass to the son Bashir without any uncomfortable democratic challenges to their minority power. Because minority it is. OK, if I'm wrong, please enlighten us as to when the most recent democratic elections in Syria took place to legitimise the Assad regime.
@ Steed, It is proven that the 'rebels' are not only in fact foreign backed factions, but they are also killing civilians and whoever refuse to join their cause. How "legit" are they? When half of them aren't even Syrians??? When a country was recognized by other nations, it is legit, and that fact shouldn't be changed just because someone other aggressor nations' political interest have changed. The high toll of government forces indicated the "rebels" not only get foreign aid, but also the government force played a good deal of restraint. Anyone with decent logic would know that in modern day, true civilian rebelling would take huge casualty simply due to the more complexity of the modern weapon systems and supply/command chains. When you see 25% total death toll is government force, it is not an indication of how many people are against the regime... the more people against the regime, the more civilians would get hurt. That is not the case.
Now political philosophy was never my strong point, but at least I managed to understand John Locke : "Political legitimacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent of the governed. Government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed.” If you assume that a government is legitimate just because other countries find it politically necessary and expedient to recognise that government, then Nazi Germany was legit all through the Second World War! Because many countries, even outside the Axis such as Spain, continued to recognise Hitler until the end was obvious. And all the now ex-colonies of the world would still be legitimate colonies if you only accept international recognition as legitimacy. Like India for example, because when other countries recognised GB internationally they would recognise her right to colonise India totally legitimately! No. Legitimate government isn't a slap on the back, a wink of complicity and a handshake from other members of the international community, many of whom are also looking to save their undemocratic backsides. Legitimate government is consent of the governed. Give me liberty or give me death!
The problem with formulating an opinion on any kind of war whilst it's going on, is your lack of information. Where do we get our information from? The answer, is of course, the media and the government. Does anybody really think either of these sources is telling us 100% of the truth? Of course they have vested interests, interests which might not come out for ages, just look at how much stuff we are still learning about ww2 60 years on.
So how do you want us to get the information? The internet, news media and word-of-mouth is all we have. Using those sources we have to decide if our going into battle is worth the fight. Not good, but what better suggestions do you have?
Not necessarily so , Its only if a fellow member of NATO is 'attacked' , and then action 'may' be enforced .
Well now that Syria has used chemical weapons, other nations have to decide which side to take. This is just escalating.
