What's new

Syrian Civil War (Graphic Photos/Vid Not Allowed)

They are all foreigners. They don't know who he is. They probably thought he was Assad.
Most of the fighters were Idlibis and Homsis.
Terrorists in Idlib demolished the statue of famed Syrian figure, Ibrahim Hanano. Great, because they are 'Syrians fighting for freedom'.

Ibrahim Hanano is considered one of the most celebrated warriors and heroes of the resistance against the French Mandate. After his death, Hanano's house in Aleppo was used by Syrian nationalists as a "house of the nation."

Ibrahim Hananu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


@ebray @Dr.Thrax I'm sure you'll find an excuse for this one too.


CBbCrGxXIAAzmCE.png


CBbCrRGUIAAJSri.png
LOL
All of a sudden you care about the French mandate? Why don't you research who were the French mandate's troops?
(Hint: They were majority Alawite.)
Also, they took the statue down because that's idolatry, which is shirk. Not that shiites would know what shirk is anyways lol.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt show discord over Syria

CAIRO (AP) — Egypt and Saudi Arabia are cooperating militarily to thwart a power grab in Yemen by Shiite rebels, but the agreement on how to deal with the region's complex and intertwined conflicts may stop there. The two countries' diverging interests were evident at the Arab summit over the weekend, particularly over the crises in Syria and Libya.
Related Stories

In Syria's civil war, Saudi Arabia has staunchly stuck by its demands for President Bashar Assad's removal. In a speech to the summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, Saudi King Salman railed against "those with blood on their hands" and said he cannot be any part of a resolution to the war, now in its fifth year.

In contrast, President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi in his speech urged a political solution, pointing to the need to "confront terrorist organizations" and prevent the collapse of Syrian state institutions. He said Egypt would host a conference of Syria's opposition aimed at unifying its position for political talks.

The speech reflected what el-Sissi has made his top priority since rising to office last year — fighting Islamic militants. Egypt's rhetoric has emphasized the need to preserve Syria as a bulwark against terrorists over the need to remove Assad, though the government has avoided saying that outright. On Friday, a government official told The Associated Press that the Egyptian stance is that Assad's regime "must be part of the negotiations and the transitional period."

"It is not about personalities," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the diplomatic efforts.

The differences led to an embarrassing moment after el-Sissi proudly had a letter from Russian President Vladimir Putin read out loud at the summit's closing session Sunday. Russia is a key supporter of Assad and has strong ties to el-Sissi, who gave Putin a lavish welcome in Egypt last month.

In his letter, Putin urged a political solution to the Syria war. After it was read, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal took the microphone and lashed out at Russia in a speech aired live on TV.

"They (Russians) speak about the misery the situation in Syria while they are a main part of the miseries that affects the Syrian people," al-Faisal said, pointing to Moscow's arms sales to Damascus.

El-Sissi thanked al-Faisal for his remarks and, in an apparent attempt to put the best spin on the awkward situation, commented that all Arab leaders emphasize that they seek solutions to regional crises in their contacts with international players. El-Sissi then gave a closing speech praising the new hopes for future joint action sparked by the summit, where the leaders agreed to create a new joint Arab military force. Egypt has been the strongest advocate for the force.


In Libya, el-Sissi wants regional action against the growing power of Islamic militants, whom Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have already hit with airstrikes several times the past year. In his opening speech to the summit, el-Sissi repeatedly spoke of the need for action in Libya. In contrast, the Saudi king hardly mentioned it — a sign of their differing priorities.

Egyptian columnist Abdullah el-Sinnawi, who is close to the military and el-Sissi, said the lack of agreement is likely to paralyze any future communal action, including through the joint military force.

The two sides don't agree on who the "enemy is, how to hit and what is the priority," el-Sinnawi told AP.

Notably, Assad — who did not attend the summit — told Russian reporters ahead of the gathering that Egypt understands the crisis in Syria and that there is limited security cooperation between the two countries. "We hope to see closer Syrian-Egyptian relations," he said.

After al-Faisal's speech, a prominent Egyptian TV political show host lay into Saudi Arabia, saying it was equally to blame for Syria's bloodshed with its support of anti-Assad rebels.

"Will you keep lying to us and yourself and the world?" Eissa barked. "Yes, the repressive dictator is killing his people. And this Gulf Arab oil money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar is also killing the Syrian people."


That prompted an angry response from prominent Saudi columnist Jamal Khashoggi, who said in a tweet that Eissa's "excesses" required action.

"If the media there (in Egypt) was free, I wouldn't have said that. But it is the regime's media," Khashoggi wrote.
You Iranians really love dictatorships don't you.
 
Last edited:
Also, they took the statue down because that's idolatry, which is shirk. Not that shiites would know what shirk is anyways lol.

Statues are idolatry? :lol: No wonder you support those nutbags in Syria called Islamic extremists.

Anyways, back to my previous post:

I'm sure you'll find an excuse for this one too.
 
Last edited:
You didnt know? Why did Isis destroy thousands of years old statues in Mossul? Surely not because they were some figures of Iraqi state apparatus.

ISIS is one thing, a guy who claims supports 'freedom' for Syria and curses Assad 24/7 saying that is another thing.

This is the reality about many of those 'moderate' groups in Syria. When AQ has became officially a part of the 'revolution' and not only accepted, but praised by all other groups, it means the 'revolution' has went directly into the toilet.
 
ISIS is one thing, a guy who claims supports 'freedom' for Syria and curses Assad 24/7 saying that is another thing.

This is the reality about many of those 'moderate' groups in Syria. When AQ has became officially a part of the 'revolution' and not only accepted, but praised by all other groups, it means the 'revolution' has went directly into the toilet.
It surely went to the toilet, might have been avoided if the dictator made a dialogue with his citizens in the beginning instead of waiting for years just to make fake elections with North Korean approval in the end, but who am i to talk. :)
 
Statues are idolatry? :lol: No wonder you support those nutbags in Syria called Islamic extremists.

Anyways, back to my previous post:
ISIS is one thing, a guy who claims supports 'freedom' for Syria and curses Assad 24/7 saying that is another thing.

This is the reality about many of those 'moderate' groups in Syria. When AQ has became officially a part of the 'revolution' and not only accepted, but praised by all other groups, it means the 'revolution' has went directly into the toilet.
I agree with ISIS on two things: No cigarettes and no statues, although their methods of enforcement for both are bad. now suddenly I'll become a pro-ISIS guy simply because I said that.
 
It surely went to the toilet, might have been avoided if the dictator made a dialogue with his citizens in the beginning instead of waiting for years just to make fake elections with North Korean approval in the end, but who am i to talk. :)

You ignored the role of foreign countries who wanted to force the 'revolution' down the throat of Syria, not just one side is at fault. Some of those countries supporting the 'revolution' haven't had even one election during their whole history, which is the irony of course.

I agree with ISIS on two things: No cigarettes and no statues, although their methods of enforcement for both are bad. now suddenly I'll become a pro-ISIS guy simply because I said that.

You don't become ISIS, but your ideology says exactly what they say. Show me where in Islam statues are idolatry? If that's the case, Kaaba itself is the biggest symbol of idolatry of its kind. It's not a statue, but people are literally circling a stone and worshiping it. I applies ISIS standards here.
 
Last edited:
You ignored the role of foreign countries who wanted to force the 'revolution' down the throat of Syria, not just one side is at fault. Some of those countries supporting the 'revolution' haven't had even one election during their whole history, which is the irony of course.
Maybe but that doesnt legitimate to flush your country down the toilet just to not to loose power, look at Tunisia, happened fast and clean, what was different in their case compared to all the other Arab Spring countries?
 
You ignored the role of foreign countries who wanted to force the 'revolution' down the throat of Syria, not just one side is at fault. Some of those countries supporting the 'revolution' haven't had even one election during their whole history, which is the irony of course.
And you ignore the role of foreign countries in forcing Assad down the throats of the Syrian people.
 
You ignored the role of foreign countries who wanted to force the 'revolution' down the throat of Syria, not just one side is at fault. Some of those countries supporting the 'revolution' haven't had even one election during their whole history, which is the irony of course.

One of them even doesn't have constitution let alone holding election...
 
And you ignore the role of foreign countries in forcing Assad down the throats of the Syrian people.

You could hold talks with him, have a fair election with your own representatives and if Assad lost, you could kick him out. Assad was ready to talk since day one, but those 'rebels' were not satisfied with anything except his head chopped off. Now look at Syria.

Maybe but that doesnt legitimate to flush your country down the toilet just to not to loose power, look at Tunisia, happened fast and clean, what was different in their case compared to all the other Arab Spring countries?

Difference in Tunisia was, there was no foreign intervention. Look at Libya now, a beacon of democracy it is, no ISIS presence at all. Foreign countries insisted on supporting armed groups since day 1. Iran came in much later.
 
You could hold talks with him, have a fair election with your own representatives and if Assad lost, you could kick him out. Assad was ready to talk since they one, but those 'rebels' were not satisfied with anything except his head chopped off. Now look at Syria.
lol. Talks with a dictator? Tell me how well talks worked out with Saddam.
We tried talks, but if you haven't noticed, we kinda got massacred during protests. And tortured to death. Eh, but talks, right? Right?
And yes, the Syrians are not satisfied until Assad dies. Why? 45 years of oppression, that's why. I'm sure your ancestors loved the Shah and had talks with him, right?
 
lol. Talks with a dictator? Tell me how well talks worked out with Saddam.
We tried talks, but if you haven't noticed, we kinda got massacred during protests. And tortured to death. Eh, but talks, right? Right?
And yes, the Syrians are not satisfied until Assad dies. Why? 45 years of oppression, that's why. I'm sure your ancestors loved the Shah and had talks with him, right?
The difference between Shah and Assad is, Shah didn't want to leave power, he wanted to satisfy revolutionaries by few symbolic changes. But Assad has said he is ready to stand in an election with international observers in case the fighting stops.

How could you say the majority wanted him gone?

Look at Yemen now, if you call those in Syria revolutionary, those in Yemen are actually much more than revolutionaries, because they don't behead anyone, don't blow themselves up among Yemenis and etc. Can you tell me what is your stance on Yemen? What about Bahrain?
 
The difference between Shah and Assad is, Shah didn't want to leave power, he wanted to satisfy revolutionaries by few symbolic changes. But Assad has said he is ready to stand in an election with international observers in case the fighting stops.

How could you say the majority wanted him gone?

Look at Yemen now, if you call those in Syria revolutionary, those in Yemen are actually much more than revolutionaries, because they don't behead anyone, don't blow themselves up among Yemenis and etc. Can you tell me what is your stance on Yemen? What about Bahrain?
LOL
Assad was willing to give up power? Then why didn't he leave when protests were taking place? And no, there were no international observers in the elections (as in, no anti-Assad or neutral observers as there were pro-Assad "observers")
The majority want him gone because he kills them. Phone everyone in Aleppo, 90% of them will tell you they want him gone. 90%.
lol, Houthis opened fire on protesters in multiple areas in Yemen. That's not "revolutionary," then again, killing Sunnis is "revolutionary" for twelver shiites anyways.
Bahrain is a dictatorial idiot in power. Never supported him, and even went against him previously in my posts. Although the protesters do use violence sometimes, while claiming to be peaceful. Video evidence proves that. (Unless molotov cocktails are peaceful.)
 
Back
Top Bottom