Senate Revolution in the Muslim World

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Lowbacca_1977, Jan 28, 2011.

  1. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Well France is busy in Mali, and didn't Britain recently cut back its military spending severely as part of its austerity measures? Meanwhile Germany believes in having a military but not in using it, and who knows what the rest of NATO thinks of this.

    By the way what's the reason we haven't intervened yet? Is it because American public opinion has turned all isolationist after Iraq? Or do we genuinely think that the Syrian rebels aren't yet trustworthy partners? Do we think Assad's threat to use chemical weapons against intervening countries is credible? Or maybe we'd just rather have Assad in power and in control of his chemical arsenal rather than letting those weapons get loose in the chaos of a security meltdown?
    Last edited by Alpha-Red, Jan 16, 2013
    DarthBoba likes this.
  2. Violent Violet Menace Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2004
    star 4
    As Darth Boba guessed at earlier, special forces and intelligence is probably in there already. My guess is the same. And my hunch is that the situation is one of two scenarios:

    1. Western intelligence and special forces are helping the rebels already and have decided that the best and least costly course of action is to just aid the rebels with supplies and information, and only participate themselves on a small scale when necessary.

    2. Western intelligence and special forces are helping the rebels already, but have long ago reached the conclusion that they ultimately aren't guys you want to have in power later anyway, so they're waiting it out and aiding the rebels only enough for the two sides to kill each other as much as possible, before entering into the scene in the final stages.
    Last edited by Violent Violet Menace, Jan 16, 2013
  3. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Possibly a stupid question here, but when special forces are sent covertly into a country, do they wear uniforms? Or do they basically dress and fight like guerrillas?
    Last edited by Alpha-Red, Jan 16, 2013
  4. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    Basically it's unit preference; it varies.
  5. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    So the Geneva Conventions regarding uniformed soldiers doesn't apply to Special Forces? Or even if it did I can't imagine that a bunch of Navy SEALs behind enemy lines would want to wear something that says "Look at me, I'm an enemy! Come and get me!"
  6. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    SF from all countries pretty well do what they like based on mission requirements; it's important to remember that when the Convention was drafted soldiers of the skill level and mission purpose descriptive of Special Forces frankly did not exist.
  7. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Also, if they're doing undercover intelligence work, I would imagine they would not want the Assad regime to be able to identify them, certainly not with what would probably be noticeable uniforms.
  8. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    Yeah, I'd agree. Plus wearing the same general clothes as the guys you're training/fighting with promotes solidarity.
  9. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    What exactly is the situation in Algeria right now? With the hostages? Is this linked to Libyan terrorists, Mali terrorists, both, or something different altogether?
  10. Violent Violet Menace Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2004
    star 4
    The news up here has mentioned the possible connection to Mali, but nothing about Libya.
  11. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Well, Mali is problem basically because that's where all the guns in Libya went, right?
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Jan 18, 2013
  12. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    The hostage siege ended yesterday, FWIW. 19 hostages died. Granted, 110 or so lived, but still, pretty sloppy military response from the Algerians.
    SuperWatto likes this.
  13. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
  14. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    Ouch. Saw an article yesterday saying it was nineteen.
  15. The Loyal Imperial Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 6
    Didn't the hundred number just refer to foreigners? I was under the impression that there were several hundred Algerian workers, in addition to the aforementioned hundred, that also made it out.
  16. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    Haven't really heard much about local workers-I haven't been following this much TBH. I'd assume there were plenty there, though.
  17. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Not everyone does it like the French.
  18. The Loyal Imperial Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 6
    Even with the casualties, I'd say that's still a pretty significant number that got out in one piece.
  19. MarcusP2 Games and Community Reaper

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 10, 2004
    star 6
    Edit: This post became irrelevant when I had this thread open for 10 minutes without refreshing...
    Last edited by MarcusP2, Jan 20, 2013
    SuperWatto and DarthBoba like this.
  20. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    I'd agree..but the Algerians had the time advantage due to the terrorists deliberately creating a static situation. The last major standoff of this sort I can remember was the Shining Path terrorists in Peru during the 90s when they took over the Japanese Embassy. The Peruvian military chose the best course, which was to lock the place down and wait out the terrorists inside. There's exceedingly little advantage to the terrorists in that situation-they'll have diminishing food and water supplies, have to remain continually alert, etc.

    Just think waiting them out would have resulted in considerably fewer hostage deaths, IMO.
  21. MarcusP2 Games and Community Reaper

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 10, 2004
    star 6
    Unless the terrorists decided to call the bluff and detonate their explosives and/or murder the hostages (several of which they had apparently already killed).
  22. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    Sure, but that they hadn't already done so after four days. FWIW, these situations where the armed force goes in soon after the situation begins nearly always result in hostage deaths. Ones where they wait out the terrorists frequently don't.
  23. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
  24. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    It'll probably be a few more days before we know for certain what exactly happened. Although I can't say I'm terrifically surprised-the country is going to pieces with no clear end game, and especially with Islamic fundamentalist portions of the overall insurgent landscape making fairly serious inroads against the Syrian military lately, an Israeli airstrike on a place they view as dangerous to themselves shouldn't be a surprise. And given that Syria is known to possess chems...everyone remember the paranoia about Scuds with chemical warheads being launched from Iraq against Israeli civilian populations during the Gulf War? Sure, it never panned out, but Israel Is probably freaking out at the idea of terrorists gaining the capability to cause them grievous harm.
  25. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    The U.S. is saying it was an arms convoy from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon, a shipment of antiaircraft missiles. Syria is saying it was a military research center (most likely a chemical weapons factory) that the rebels had been trying to take. Both make sense for why Israel would bomb them, but I don't think the target matters anymore...




    Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah are harshly condemning Israel... and so is Russia, who are in military alliance with Syria. How could they retaliate? I do not think Syria would militarily retaliate against Israel... unless Assad feels like he's going down anyways, and might as well go down in a blaze of glory against Israel. So how else could they retaliate? Sanctions and blockade against Israel?