Syrian Civil War (Graphic Photos/Vid Not Allowed)

[500]

Yesterday rebels captured T-55AMV:

And today it is already used vs Assadists:

According to who? To you?

Ah, an Israeli military officer crying for 'innocent Muslim deaths'.

You know something is not right when the crocodile is crying his eyes out.

Its Iranian barrel bombers are crying about deaths in Yemen (which they provoced themselves by aggression against South Yemen). I am just stating facts.

 

[The SiLent crY]

Most of Syrian people are victimes of terrorist / extremist groups one side
and Assad the other.

Assad means violence, no respect for democracy, minority of a clan ruling the country.

USA and others didn't help directly. they trusted untrustable countries leaders.
that's the root of the problem.

stop the war but it is a need for Syrian to be able very soon to choose their president .
and with international organizations checking the elections, not like the fake Assad elections.

But at least Assad is not going to wipe out the minorities .

 

[Dr.Thrax]

But at least Assad is not going to wipe out the minorities .

So, Assad assassinating Druze leaders, bombing churches, forbidding rights to Kurds etc. isn't oppression of Minorities? Iranian logic is flawless again!

 

[The SiLent crY]

So, Assad assassinating Druze leaders, bombing churches, forbidding rights to Kurds etc. isn't oppression of Minorities? Iranian logic is flawless again!

Source please .

 

[Dr.Thrax]

Source please .

Basoul assassinated is widely known to be done by Assad.
Pictures of bombed out churches can be found anywhere on google.
Kurds given no rights by Assad is also widely known, Assad himself gave "rights" to Kurds in 2011.

 

[ultron]

Jihadists bombed Russian base in Latakia using Grads.

Syria rebels target airport used by Russia

 

[UniverseWatcher]

A Closer look of Russian Bombers in Syria

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[Madali]

LOL



So Assad killing 179,000 people is the "least harmful?"
Flawless Iranian logic never ceases to amaze me.

SNHR is an anti-government organisation. It's a useless source to rely on, but this has been mentioned multiple times.

In fact it was super successful. Just after two years of sanctions Iran kicked Ahmadinejad and begged for negotiations. I guarantee you that after 5-10 years ayatulas would do literally anything.

Do you understand posts or do just look for keywords and answer randomly?

Bush's condition for "stop enrichment and THEN we will talk" didn't work. Because Iran didn't stop enrichment and THEN talk to Bush. How is that hard to understand?

 

[The SiLent crY]

Basoul assassinated is widely known to be done by Assad.
Pictures of bombed out churches can be found anywhere on google.
Kurds given no rights by Assad is also widely known, Assad himself gave "rights" to Kurds in 2011.

So , No source ?

Having no right is better than being slaughtered by so called moderate rebels or being enslaved .

We could see how the so called rebels treated Druze people after taking division 52 , leave alone attacking them in Hadar .
I don't see any need to mention Shias and the way they're threatened to death to the last one .

Regarding Christians , I suggest you to watch the video in which Nusra Sheikhs are converting Christians to their version of religion of peace and love .

Alewites are no better than Shias , If I'm not wrong they're called nusayris by moderate rebels and they have been threatened to death too .

Check this from your beloved moderate rebels :

Alloush gave a speech on the merits of Hajj in 2013 and praised Usama bin Laden, addressing him by the honorific "Sheikh" and the honorific "rahimahu Allah" for making Hajj around 91 or 92 when Alloush was at the Islamic University of Medina.] Alloush addressed the Al-Qaeda organization Jabhat al-Nusra as "our brothers", saying that "The summary of this issue is that we in Jaish Al-Islam praise our brothers of the Nusrah Front and we don't consider them Khawarij as is propagated against us, We fight alongside them and they fight alongside us".


Alloush gave a speech during Ramadan of 2013 attacking Shia whom he called "Rafidis" and Alawites, whom he called "Nusayris" and the "Majus" (Zoroastrians), saying "the Mujahideen of Shaam will cleanse Shaam of the Filth of Rafidis & Rafidism, they will cleanse it for ever in sha Allah, till they will cleanse the land of Shaam of the filth of the Majoos (Fireworshippers) who fought the Religion of Allah the Almighty","the Shia are still despicable & pitiful though history", "And I give you the news, oh Filthy Rafidis: Just as Banu Umayya crushed your heads in the Past, the people of Ghouta & Shaam will crush them soon, They will make you taste a painful torment in this world, before Allah makes you taste it in the Hereafter, Oh you unclean Rafidis! You will collide into what you've never expected of Power from the Mujahideen of Islam".


Alloush has called Shia, Alawites, and Iranians by the names "Rafidi", "Nusayri", and "Majusi" (Magi, a term in Arabic referring to Zoroastrians).


Alloush said that Alawites are "more infidel than Jews and Christians." (أكفر من اليهود والنصارى), addressing the Alawites as "Nusayri" (النصيرية).[19] which was originally from a fatwa about Alawites issued by Ibn Taymiyyah.

Alloush claimed that "Our nation has a great thirst for an Islamic state" and attacked democracy after an interviewer asked Alloush "Can you accept a civil, democratic, and pluralistic state".

In case if you were looking for a Source :

Spoiler: Source

Zahran Alloush

 

[Navigator]

The upper chamber of the Russian parliament has unanimously given a formal consent to President Putin to use the nation’s military in Syria to fight terrorism at a request from the Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Consent was necessary for deployment of troops for foreign combat missions under the Russian constitution.
Ivanov stressed that no ground operations are planned in Syria. Russia would use its warplanes to hit terrorist targets when requested by the Syrian government. He stressed that unlike the US-led coalition of countries that bombs militant troops in Syria, Russia was invited to do so by the legal authorities of Syria and thus follows international law.
Russian parliament unanimously approves use of troops in Syria — RT News

 

[500]

Do you understand posts or do just look for keywords and answer randomly?

Bush's condition for "stop enrichment and THEN we will talk" didn't work. Because Iran didn't stop enrichment and THEN talk to Bush. How is that hard to understand?

I repeat. It took just 2 years of sanctions to kick Ahmadinejad. There was not any rush. 5-10 years more and Ayatulas would do literally anything.

 

[Madali]

I repeat. It took just 2 years of sanctions to kick Ahmadinejad. There was not any rush. 5-10 years more and Ayatulas would do literally anything.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. kick Ahmadinejad? His term was over.

I'm not talking about the effectiveness of sanctions at all. Stop confusing the point.

My whole focus was on "Pre-Conditions for Talks". I believe Pre-Conditions for Talks that already specifies the outcome is not a realistic or an effective diplomatic tool.

For example, If two groups are fighting over land, one would encourage talks to resolve it. The aim of the talks would be a peaceful resolution. However, if Group A sets a Pre-Condition for Talks like, "Group B has to leave the lands and give it to me before we start the talks", then the talks obviously won't even start. This condition is supposed to be the outcome of the talks, by making it a PRE-condition, then talks will stall.

My example of Bush's pre-condition is that the pre-condition to the talks did not work. Bush's pre-condition was that there has to be an end of enrichment before we talk. But because the subject of the enrichment was supposed to be the whole point of the talks, setting up a pre-condition prevented the talks to start.

I'm not talking about good or bad, or effectiveness of sanctions, or how strong or weak Iran is. I'm just making a point about diplomatic talks and how pre-conditions like this prevent from two sides sitting with each other.

 

[500]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. kick Ahmadinejad? His term was over.

I'm not talking about the effectiveness of sanctions at all. Stop confusing the point.

My whole focus was on "Pre-Conditions for Talks". I believe Pre-Conditions for Talks that already specifies the outcome is not a realistic or an effective diplomatic tool.

For example, If two groups are fighting over land, one would encourage talks to resolve it. The aim of the talks would be a peaceful resolution. However, if Group A sets a Pre-Condition for Talks like, "Group B has to leave the lands and give it to me before we start the talks", then the talks obviously won't even start. This condition is supposed to be the outcome of the talks, by making it a PRE-condition, then talks will stall.

My example of Bush's pre-condition is that the pre-condition to the talks did not work. Bush's pre-condition was that there has to be an end of enrichment before we talk. But because the subject of the enrichment was supposed to be the whole point of the talks, setting up a pre-condition prevented the talks to start.

I'm not talking about good or bad, or effectiveness of sanctions, or how strong or weak Iran is. I'm just making a point about diplomatic talks and how pre-conditions like this prevent from two sides sitting with each other.

Prior elections in Iran all analysts predicted that some radicals are going to win, but Iranians chose most liberal one, because they were frustrated from sanctions. This shows that sanctions were very effective. There was no reason to rush (except that western companies wanted to make business with Iran). 5-10 years more and mullahs would bend.

As for Assad. Does any sane person believe that he will ever rule the entire Syria again? - Of course not. So why keep him?

 

[Madali]

Prior elections in Iran all analysts predicted that some radicals are going to win, but Iranians chose most liberal one, because they were frustrated from sanctions. This shows that sanctions were very effective. There was no reason to rush (except that western companies wanted to make business with Iran). 5-10 years more and mullahs would bend.

As for Assad. Does any sane person believe that he will ever rule the entire Syria again? - Of course not. So why keep him?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand a very simple concept. I'm not talking about the effectiveness of sanctions or not. I'm not talking about elections. I'm not talking about conservatives or liberals. That is all besides the point.

I'm saying an extremely simple thing. I'm trying to make only one point, and that is about Pre-conditions set as a condition for talks

Do pre-conditions work in diplomatic talks or not? My argument is pre-conditions do not work, because they do not allow talks to start.

That's all I am talking about. Why do most people like confusing the topic. To be able to communicate well, one has to remove all unnecessary fat to be able to get at the meat of the matter.

I'll repeat it very simply. Please do not rush into replying.

1) Pre-conditions generally prevent diplomatic talks

2) What does pre-conditions mean? It means setting a condition that needs to be met by the other party before the talks can start. Usually, such pre-conditions prevent the talks from even starting so it is counterintuitive.
Let me clarify this using a non-political example. Two farmers are farming & living in the same land and they are always fighting over it. A third party comes and tells them, "Why don't you two talk it over?". First farmer agrees, but second farmer puts a pre-condition for talks. The pre-condition is "The first farmer has to leave the land, take all his goods, and promise not to come back, and then I agree to talks". This pre-condition will then prevent the talks from starting.

3) Using the Bush example easily highlights this. Bush pre-condition was,
(a) Stop enrichment and then we will talk
(b) As this was the whole point of talks, Iran did not agree to stop enrichment and THEN talk
(c) Therefore, Bush' pre-condition was an obstacle to diplomatic talks
(d) Therefore, preconditions are usually undiplomatic and should be discouraged

This is such a simple concept. But you probably will respond with something like, "Oh yeah?! Well barrel bomb killer ayatollah peace democracy Assad mullahs the people!!"

 

[ultron]

Russia attacked and destroyed first jihadist targets in Syria in coordination with Assad army.

https://twitter.com/x/status/649173285607972864

Huge Russian air strike somewhere in Homs province.