Syrian civil war at stalemate, Assad won't go: Russia

Comments (8)
kenradke11 wrote:

Oh yeah..Assad will go straight to his coffin then when his facilities are stormed by the opposition fighters and if that is the way he choose then that is the way he will die!

Dec 22, 2012 1:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Fromkin wrote:

This is how this propaganda farce works. The media built lies and stack them in layers one on top of the other So much so that it become dificult for unsuspected minds to discerne the truth from lies.

Here is the bottom line: for almost two years the US, England, France, Israel, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have tried to overthrow the Syrian government but have failed. They’ve attacked Syria through Jordan, Turkey, Irak, and Lebanon.

That’s the truth. The rest is propaganda.

By the way the international airport in Damascus was encircled according to fake media reports. What happened?

Dec 22, 2012 2:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

@Fromkin: By the way the international airport in Damascus was encircled according to fake media reports. What happened?

On Oct. 2nd “President Assad ordered units 5 and 6, estimated to be 30,000 soldiers and 2,000 personnel carriers, to move from Hama to Aleppo and to attack any occupied areas of Aleppo province from the Turkish border”…What happened?…How did that go?

Dec 22, 2012 3:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Free_Pacific wrote:

Maybe Fromkin is Vladamir Putin? The propoganda is starting to look the same.

In a war of attrition, Assad won’t have the manpower to sustain his battlefield. Simple fact.

Dec 22, 2012 7:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

Assasd will go if he is dead. Ask Gaddafi…one shot one kill, game over!

Dec 22, 2012 8:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BraveNewWrld wrote:

bobber1956 wrote:
Assasd will go if he is dead. Ask Gaddafi…one shot one kill, game over!

So, now with Gaddafi gone, are Libyans happier? Better off? Is there less viollence? Less political, ethnic, racial motivated killing? More safety and security? More freedom? Better life?
If the answers to the above are “no”, then what was the point of “…one shot one kill”? Just to deliver that sick sort of pleasure to the feeble minded who enjoy that sort of thing, “…one shot one kill”?
Perhaps, money would’ve been better spent by providing them with an adequate psychiatric care in this country?

Dec 22, 2012 11:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Fromkin wrote:

“In a war of attrition, Assad won’t have the manpower to sustain his battlefield. Simple fact.”

Nonsense. How long the “war of attrition” will take to bear the fruits you’re expecting?

Syria is not Libya and Assad is not Kadhafi. Kennedy was also killed by a bullet. Should we ask him too?

The Syrian government still has 400,000 strong army. And perhaps 200,000 volonteer force and has barely used its military arsenal. That’s fact. And last time I’ve checked the scoreboard Syria was leading regardless of the lies you read here.

I am not saying the Syria army is a match to NATO but the Rebels/jihadists sent by the US and NATO to sow chaos in Syria will never defeat the syrian army. The war of attrition is affecting them more than the syrian army.

Dec 23, 2012 1:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
Free_Pacific wrote:

@Fromkin.

I’m not really expecting any ‘fruits’. There is nothing good about what is happening in Syria. But this is a war of attrition, as you can see Assad is falling back to ever smaller circles, this is to stem that attrition. He is already, in fact, abandoning parts of the battlefield. If he tries to hold large areas, his small outposts are targets that add to the attrition. So like I said, his battlefield is not sustainable.

Anyway, I don’t think Assad has any intention of holding onto power in Syria, something he probably gave up long ago. This is evident in the willing destruction of rebel held areas with sympathetic rebel supporters being the populace. If he can do massive amounts of damage to these areas, stem his attrition by abandoning them and hold on for as long as possible, like you say, he can up the attrition of the other side with his more powerful and indiscriminate weapons (killing civilians is part of his policy to exhaust their support for the FSA). Then, when the country exhausts itself in this conflict, he can sit in less damaged areas populated by his own sect. Like Bosnia, negotiations will need to begin at some point, no matter who is or isn’t left (the only way this wouldn’t happen, would be if there was genocide perpetrated by the FSA, then you would see UN involvement). The total damage he delivers to rebel areas will make them more motivated for some sort of deal that keeps his own sect safe.

The Syrian army will not survive this conflict Fromkin, as it does not have the manpower to regain areas it has abandoned. Like I said, it is far too attritional. If the Syrian Arab Army, had the sort of manpower in reality you speak of, he wouldn’t have to abandon these places. The writing is on the wall now. I actually wonder if Latakia will end up some sort of special province or state, be absorbed by another state or some other fate. These are the questions Assad is faced with. He may be a butcher, but he doesnt seem irrational, just foolish. Especially when this all stared… shooting woman and children, mass arrests, torture. These are all the mistakes that have led Syria to where it is now. Along with China and Russia, the blame is squarely at Assad’s feet.

Dec 23, 2012 6:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.