Syria explained

[Eagle]

Thank goodness someone has figured it out what is happening in the middle east, I was confused but now it's as clear as mud.

A highly restricted briefing document on Syria....

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)

So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.

So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmmm... might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (Good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

I hope that clears all this up for you.

[Dizzy]

My head hurts now     Pretty much sums it all up though.... scarey eh ?

[Davy51]

What type of Muslims are the Gulf States that have the oil ?

[Evil Sid]

If they are bad muslims then thats good as we can attack them unless they are really fighting the very bad muslims which is good but bad as we can't attack them. Sir humphrey has no problem understanding it.

[Freeborn John]

What type of Muslims are the Gulf States that have the oil ?

That would be the type who own the Western nations backsides, it is not considered prudent to comment on their traditional cultural values.

[observer]

The Saudis are Sunni Dave; having lots of oil money makes them goodies, cos they can buy jets etc from us, and keep folk employed at Wharton. They have allegedly been funding Sunni rebels in Syria, including ISIL, which makes them secret baddies. They also fund "educational" projects for their bretheren in Europe and offered to build Mosques for the migrants. But surprisingly, they haven't offered to take in any migrants themselves. I think the Turks may be Sunni, which explains their hatred of Assad and the Kurds, and their duplicity over allowing migrants into Europe. But they may be classed as goodies, as they are members of NATO, and aspire to join the EU; even though their footy fans booed a two minute silence for the Paris victims, at the Greek v Turkey game. 

[P J]

Sorry to be a party pooper but there are a reported 500000 Syrians presently in Saudi, but don't let that get in the way.

[Davy51]

It is more confusing than Protestants & Catholics lighting fires under one another.

[asperity]

So tell me again, why are we trying to get involved?

[P J]

So tell me again, after we started and caused this, how any refugees are we taking?

[observer]

Too many ! 

[P J]

So shut up having a go at a country for not doing enough when your own country would take 125 years to equal their present efforts.  

[Lt Kije]

So shut up having a go at a country for not doing enough when your own country would take 125 years to equal their present efforts.  

 

[observer]

Suggest you start checking your sources;  not one politician, political commentator or news caster has accepted that Saudi is taking migrants, in fact the opposite. Now if your talking about the Haj, that's a temporary visit, which no doubt brings in money for the host. Perhaps it's the same source that fed you the "fact" that no terrorists were using the migrant invasion as a means of entering the EU illegally?  The Saudis are Sunni, so one would expect them and the Gulf States to be taking ALL the Sunni Syrian refugees, and start feeding them food rather than weapons. As for our end of the trail; the vast majority of this invasion are economic migrants NOT refugees (not even Syrian); there's over 6,000 in Calais from Africa and other parts of Asia; so you can spare us the bleeding heart mantra.

[Lt Kije]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/europes-crisis-refugees_b_8175924.html

 

There you go, 

 

What you should have said Obs, The Daily Mail have not reported

[observer]

I'll believe it, when the Bleeding heart Broadcasting Corporation do !      There are of course migrant labourers in Saudi, some would argue virtual slave labour, from the far East. 

[Bazj]

The Saudis are Sunni Dave; 

It's always sunny in saudi....

[Freeborn John]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/europes-crisis-refugees_b_8175924.html

 

There you go, 

 

What you should have said Obs, The Daily Mail have not reported

Surely not an article from the Puffington Host, the Sunday Sport for the chattering classes!

[P J]

But the figures are from the UNHCR  and as it says as Saudi is not a signatory of the UN convention covering refugees,  the refugees from Syria into Saudi are classed as "Arab brothers and sisters in distress.  There are reportedly a half a million of them who can be conveniently ignored by alarmists with agendas who will count only those with  UN recognised refugee status.  A bit sly really but not unexpected.

[P J]

there's over 6,000 in Calais from Africa and other parts of Asia; 

Just a quick geography lesson for the ignorant, Calais is in France. 

[observer]

Doh ! Just educating you luvvies that the vast majority of those attempting to invade the UK are NOT Syrian refugees, but young male, economic chancers from all over the M/East and Africa.

[P J]

The only thing you show folk is how bitter and ignorant and narrow minded you are.  

[observer]

Pragmatic as opposed to over emotional ! Let's get this right, while the majority of Europeans, never mind Brits, realise that we just can't cope with this influx, and now Shengen is dead and everyone is tightening their borders. With terrorist infiltration through the migrant stream and the fact that the vast majority of this exodus are NOT genuine refugees; you want to keep the doors open to all comers. That is the kind of irresponsible nonsense that just leads from one crisis to the next. The established rules governing treatment of migrants are well established, it's only because they were not enforced earlier, through misguided sentiment, that we now face the biggest movement of people since WW2.

[P J]

If we can't cope, we should stop making it happen.

[observer]

Wow, a eureka moment there !    Problem is, the causes, principally the Bliar/Bush adventures; are past, and we're left with the mess.; although we may not be able to blame them for the African invasion. The immediate cause of this debacle, was the EU response (or rather lack of it) to initial migrant landings over 10 years ago. First we had the burst of collective emotion over migrant drownings, which prompted a rescue operation; but not rescue and return to Libya or Turkey; it was transport to Italy or Greece. Then we had the lack of facilities in Lampedusa and Lesbos, to quaranteen these migrants, and allow them to be processed, in order to sort the wheat from the chaff; IE the genuine refugees from the economic chancers. That would have allowed at least 75% to have been deported as failed asylum seekers. It would also allow for security screening of all entrants. That imo, is what should have happened, but because of a myopic emotional response, plus idiotic outbursts from Frau Merkel (which she's now trying to back track on) we finished up with an avalanche instead of a trickle.