Explanation of the Syria situation.

Sadly, I can claim no credit for this dit!

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 (mmm…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 !!!
A very superficial analysis. What about the French, Germans and Greeks? Are THEY good or bad?

And absolutely no mention of the conspiracy theory that blames everything on Israel.
Well it is as good as most explanation by the press, just goes to show that it's complicated, it never helps when the Russians and Americans almost always back opposite sides?
There's no mention of the Isle of Wight's status re the Syrian situation.

And I'm so disillusioned at the lack of conspiracy theories that I'm cancelling my Harrods store card.

Surely SOMEONE can start a decent one?
Ahh ... you obviously weren't in on the email about the targeting of Syria with IOW goats cheese delivered by Islander aircraft refurbished at Bembridge ... only before the plans could be finalised BN flogged the only Islander airframe to Cubby Broccoli for use in the latest James Bond Movie!

Harrods quoted for the supply of goats cheese (allegedly)
I knew there was a conspiracy there somewhere, and I should have thought of Cubby Broccoli. After all, why should there be so many people with a cabbage connection? Germany had Chancellor Kohl, and China had Chou En-Lai.

And don't forget the malign influence of Brussels on the EU.
I don't know whats worse ... Brussels or Goats cheese! ... but while we're on the cabbage theme ... whats those pointy headed ones called????

Dunno if the link will work, but now I'm confused. The hacking organisation Anonymous (are they Good or Bad?) has apparently "declared war" on IS.

My confusion is complicated by the fact that it declared war on the UK regime in May.
Perhaps I could refer my learned colleague to the original post re Putin (bad) who is now (good) ... and perhaps anonymous (bad) when they declared war on the UK regime is now (good) because they realise that the UK regime is perhaps on the same side ... or of course I could be spouting utter b*llocks!
I would defend to the death your right to spout b*llocks.
Even utter b*llocks. (And even if you prefer MG to Austin Healey)

But seriously - and I appreciate this is not a forum which uses that word lightly - could this "Anonymous" group prove a real threat to IS?

Cybernerds taking action which could damage what is clearly a very real threat to our current way of life?

The optimist in me (and I appreciate that a pessimist is an optimist who has learned by experience) sees the potential for a way ahead.

Or could Anonymous be actually inhibiting our own "Good" security services by closing down the use of the Web by the "Bad" b*stards?
Anonymous will not be bothered by any rules and regulations, hence they can hopefully wreak havoc.

However, it would be nice to think that they would pass any 'good stuff' back to GCHQ/NSA for resolution by people with big bangsticks.


Anonymous are, in the main good guys. This of course only being true of you are politically left and fairly anti establishment.

However, they kind of let anyone in an anyone who frequents 4chan will know that there are plenty of people who associate with anonymous that are by no means good...... Not by a long shot.

Edit: If you don't know what 4chan is and your curiosity has you heading over there, visit it with caution, especially if you're likely to be DV'd.
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads