and the site receives a small commission
NSFW This is one of the most disgusting things ever...
- Thread starter archangel
- Start date
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Unfortunately they don't have nukes - but I can envisage some jordanian migs in bound with a heavy load of napalm and cluster munitions. Clearly pilots over IS territory need to practice afghanistan rules (that is ' if you should lie wounded on afghanistan's plains, and they come out to cut up what remains, roll to your rifle and blow out your brains, and go to your god like a soldier')
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,638
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
I hope they shoot those animals in the face
OP
- Messages
- 5,022
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Jordan executes convicted jihadists after pilot's death - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-31124900
It's a pity our own government don't have the same swift reaction to show that we will not back down against terrorism......
It's a pity our own government don't have the same swift reaction to show that we will not back down against terrorism......
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
In no way wishing to take away from the utter horror of what ISIS do until recently we did have something of a history as treating those who went to fight abroad as hero and encouraging people to come here to do the same and fight for us. The Spanish civil war and the Gurkhas being just two examples.
OP
- Messages
- 5,022
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 5,966
- Name
- Trev
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Whilst that true, we as a society have advanced and learned from our errant ways, many would say we have gone too far and are now too soft as with human rights etc. and I will agree in several ways to that sentiment. Unlike the civilised west, IS are still living a thousand years in the past. I think Jordan has made a good move with these two executions and I feel that this is the start of a big combined push by the Arab community against IS, at least I hope so, watch this space.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 10,358
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've just read "Zoo Station" which is a novel set against the backdrop of the rise of Nazi Germany. There's a scene in there which is chillingly similar to that. I suspect it was based on actual events in 30s Germany. As uncomfortable as I am with the "nuke them all" approach, I think we may actually be facing something as serious as the build up to WWII. There are a lot of these people, they are well armed, spread across a wide area and appear keen to do whatever they can to start a fight.
Yeah, Godwins Law on page 2........
OP
- Messages
- 5,022
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
The only video I want to see is the one showing the Murdering Scumbags getting to meet their demise.....
- Messages
- 15,395
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
history has a way of repeating itself ,80 years ago the nations of the world saw the rise of the nazi party and chose to ignore it ,stating some of the things that have been said on here .in the end they had to be put down by a major war ,its no use saying the arab nations will have to do it alone ,they have neither the technology or the weapons a united multinational force with boots on the ground is the only way to stop them
a couple of daisy cutters dropped on mosul ,would teach them we are not messing about
a couple of daisy cutters dropped on mosul ,would teach them we are not messing about
Last edited:
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
Now I could easily argue that foriegn fighters, generally are still suported across the world. But thats by the by.
I think the problems caused by IS could have been avoided or lessened if NATO countries hadn't ignored Syria initially and even turned a blind eye to fghters entering Syria via NATO borders. Its very easy to argue its not our fight. But history shows us time and again what happens when things like this are ignored. And its not like we've no involvement in the past in the area
Yv
TPer Emerita
- Messages
- 25,725
- Name
- Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think most people in here have agreed that any offensive would need western assistance, or rather, non-Muslim assistance, but for it to be effective and to have support from the people of those various nations, it should be led by those nations and not by the Americans, the Europeans or anyone else not in the region. We know form bitter experience, that wading into their affairs and politics can cause as many problems as it solves and indeed could be argued was how we got to this point in the first place.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm not so sure they do. Western intervention in this to any great extent will only serve to increase support for IS. It already has with the limited air support intervention.
On the other hand, the capability of middle eastern forces isn't able to plan lead or conduct the sort of warfare that will be needed for a ground offensive. You only have to look at the numerous Arab v Israel wars. The latter being a small country, with limited resources in terms of kit, but particularly in manpower beat the Arabs hands down every time, in fact nearly as often as we have won against the French!
The issue then wasn't kit or manpower, the Arab armies had plenty of both and the kit was of at least reasonable quality. The problem was the way those wars were conducted.
Terrible as it is to say it, IS/ISIL/ISIS are a very well organized army, and have gained experience that the Arab Nations don't have. They are also showing flexibility in tactics, dropping the mass advances which are vulnerable to air attack and moving to small group actions where even if they are attacked by air strikes the effort is costly to the west for very little result.
I don't know what the answer is here. Boots on the ground means chasing those small groups while being worn down by attrition. Trying to go after a logistics chain doesn't seem to work, living off the local population negates that as there are no large storage and maintenance areas to bomb. Carpet bombing/nukes are pointless, you just make holes in the sand and green coloured glass. If you take ground you will be subject to a terrorist campaign, like in Viet nam, NI and Afghanistan. There's no negotiating with them, unless our opening statement is that we are all prepared to done robes and worship Allah.
In short it's pretty much unwinable and unfightable.
- Messages
- 10,358
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Mmm-hmm.
Isn't PART of this mess because we left other people to sort it out previously? History suggests that any force (including "Us") that is capable of taking out IS won't celebrate victory by beating their swords into plowshares and settling down with big Macs and MTV. They will dig in to defend their conquests against the next lot and / or look over their shoulders for more worlds to conquer.
We used to think Al Qaida were bad. Now in some ways they count as allies. And that's pretty messed up.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
True that it says something when AQ kick IS/ISIL/ISIS out for being too extreme!
We did leave them to sort of the mess in Syria, thats true. But politically, we really had no options on the matter, public opinion was that we shouldn't stick our oar in. Reasons for that? A misplaced opinion that Iraq was unlawful? A US led mess in Afghanistan? Doesn't really matter what the reasons were, the UK wouldn't have played at the beginning in Syria. In hindsight, the opposes were wrong, so yes, I'd attribute part of the problem to leaving Syria be, when the West should have done something. Having said that, you have to wonder if we'd be in a bigger mess if we had?
Again history shows that we do indeed celebrate 'victory' by beating swords etc. We'll be luck to have an army half the size it was when the Berlin wall came down by the end of next year. The RAF is less that the size of the RAF in Germany during the cold war, and the Navy, well, less ships but far more capable, so the situation isn't as bad there. However, IS don't have an air force or submarines so air defence destroyers and Anti Submarine Frigates aren't a lot of use. The Carriers, if we ever put planes on them are very useful, even though we have a large unsinkable carrier in the Med anyway.
But that neither here nor there really, the fact is that apart from Malaya (A win for HM's Commonwealth forces), no terrorist war has ever been 'won'. The US blew it in Vietnam. The IRA packed it in, mostly, but only because they were so riddled with informants they couldn't fart without the Police knowing about it, so that wasn't a win as such. The US run Iraq and Afghanistan were hark backs to their appallingly bad attitudes and tactics from Vietnam.
But IS are something else, yes the VC were motivated by a communist ideology, the IRA by Marxists (but the Yanks never cottoned onto that when they donated money to them!). The Taliban, and by extension AQ/IS are on a whole different level of motivation.
We did leave them to sort of the mess in Syria, thats true. But politically, we really had no options on the matter, public opinion was that we shouldn't stick our oar in. Reasons for that? A misplaced opinion that Iraq was unlawful? A US led mess in Afghanistan? Doesn't really matter what the reasons were, the UK wouldn't have played at the beginning in Syria. In hindsight, the opposes were wrong, so yes, I'd attribute part of the problem to leaving Syria be, when the West should have done something. Having said that, you have to wonder if we'd be in a bigger mess if we had?
Again history shows that we do indeed celebrate 'victory' by beating swords etc. We'll be luck to have an army half the size it was when the Berlin wall came down by the end of next year. The RAF is less that the size of the RAF in Germany during the cold war, and the Navy, well, less ships but far more capable, so the situation isn't as bad there. However, IS don't have an air force or submarines so air defence destroyers and Anti Submarine Frigates aren't a lot of use. The Carriers, if we ever put planes on them are very useful, even though we have a large unsinkable carrier in the Med anyway.
But that neither here nor there really, the fact is that apart from Malaya (A win for HM's Commonwealth forces), no terrorist war has ever been 'won'. The US blew it in Vietnam. The IRA packed it in, mostly, but only because they were so riddled with informants they couldn't fart without the Police knowing about it, so that wasn't a win as such. The US run Iraq and Afghanistan were hark backs to their appallingly bad attitudes and tactics from Vietnam.
But IS are something else, yes the VC were motivated by a communist ideology, the IRA by Marxists (but the Yanks never cottoned onto that when they donated money to them!). The Taliban, and by extension AQ/IS are on a whole different level of motivation.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
So do you think that our doing nothing in Syria has been the right thing to do? Atleast before it got to this point. Equally the West's involvement in Iraq's recent history has hardly left a stable country behind. There is a tricky balance to be found agreed and its certainly not a short term thing. But doing nothing isn't the answer. Once you have become involved, you need to accept you have to stay involved
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There's a huge problem with sticking our oars into Syria, and that is around what the actual will of the majority is. I don't know and I doubt anyone does that the majority of Syrians want to overthrow Asiad. Therein lays the problem. If its not the majority, and we interfered then we would be morally and legally in the wrong. If the UN passed that as lawful, then the repercussions would be far wore! For example it would mean that if NI flared up again, the US would be fully justified in bombing British troops. Or we could for example attack Spanish forces in the Basque region. All of that is leaving aside the fact that support in the Middle East wouldn't be there. Most Counties in that area are equally undemocratic and arguably just as evil.
So I don't think it was a simple question about intervening.
Even if the West had, would that have solved a problem like IS? No, it would have simply played into their ideas of the West being modern day 'Crusaders' hell bent on subjugating Islam. True, thats not what the idea would have been, but since when has true motive got in the way of some good old propaganda? But the end result could have been all us us being involved in something far worse by now if we had of done.
I agree that we are now at a point where doing nothing about IS isn't an option. But we have long been passed that point when it comes to Islamic Fundamentalism in general. Question is what?
Yes we can encourage the Arab Nations to fight their own battles. For the reasons I gave above, thats not likely to work very well.
So what does that leave? Our own Military intervening? There's a number of problems there. We only now have the capability to deploy 1 Brigade on rotation on operations. Thats around 3500 troops, short term we could deploy a Division, but that cannot be sustained any more. The UK couldn't do it alone, have you seen the size of the area they would need to fight in? The French, Germans, Dutch, Canadians and Aussies are in the same boat, although some of them couldn't even deploy a Division (3 Brigades), even as a short term measure. The Yanks could deploy a very much bigger force, but that would only inflame matters. Besides, they always insist on running the show and their previous shows they really are not very good at running that sort of war.
So what is left? I am not sure what the answer is.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
Thats a somewhat spurioous analogy, as I'm sure you know. Doing nothing in Syria allowed the situation to develop as it has. Coupled with the way you had NATO countries turning a blind eye to people crossing their borders to fight. So doing nothing didn't work. Had we (Royal we ) become involved earlier it may not of escalted to the level its at now.
I don't know the answer. I know doing nothing isn't it. And also if you don't learn some pretty sharp lessons from the west's involvment in the Middle East in recent years then you risk repeating never ending problems.
And I know that sounds like blaming Western involvment, and there have been some pretty shoddy things done, and some 'interesting' bedfellows over the years. Thats far from the whole picture though. I really doubt there is much hope for the region unlesss you can find away of looking forward instead of back
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But, how can you intervene when you don't know what the majority of a country want? No one does, so an intervention would be unlawful in those circumstances. So, no it's not spurious at all. Because making it lawful, you open other far nastier cans of worms.
There's nothing legally the Turks can do to prevent it. There was nothing originally we could do to stop UK citizens going either, it took a change in law, one which would mean had the Spanish Civil War happened today would prevent anti fascists taking part.
Correct, in that doing nothing didn't stop IS gaining ground. But would have doing something stopped that? No. It also begs the question, what would 'something' have been? Invasion? We didn't have the troops at the time, nor did anyone else apart from the Americans. Air strikes? Against what? The west is so ruled by rules on the conduct of war they would have been impossible to conduct, the risk of civilian casualties would have been too great. Political pressure? Thats all we could do, but Assiad doesn't give a toss if HM's Government is very dischuffed with him.
So realistically there was nothing we could have reasonably done to prevent the situation getting worse. Nor was there any 'world will' to do so.
As for answers now? There isn't one. Apart from wiping IS and every other extremist off the face of the planet, thats something thats impossible to achieve.
The past and what we did or didn't do are utterly irrelevant to their aims, which is world wide Islamic fundamentalism. What we, or the Yanks or the West in general did in the past, Iraq, Afghanistan are all red herrings spouted by Guardians readers to somehow get their tiny minds round something they can't grasp, this isn't about the Middle East it's about world wide Islam. Bottom lip trembling hand wringing about the past is misplaced.
It's been brewing to my knowledge since the late 80's, the Special Branch briefing about the subject I went to didn't mention how long it's been brewing for, so it may well have been longer. But at that point they were saying even then was, forget Paddy, thats almost finished, and whats coming is a whole lot worse. He was right!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
It is spurious as you know.
There were reports of various war crimes being committed on both sides in Syria before IS ever reared its head. Legality has never worried us before in that part of the world. If intervening to prevent say the use of chemical weapons would have been illegal. On that subject remind me why we went to war in Iraq?
Anyway its by the by we could have intevened and I don't believe we'd be where we are now if we had. But we didn't so we'll probably never know).
You know as well as I do thats not really true. The Turks were quite happy to watch fighters crossing their border as relations with Assiad were p*** poor. Either side was pretty far below shooting at each other across that border. Making it less porous depended on will, not anything else. Which then begs the question as to why didn't the rest of NATO bring pressure on their ally to stop it earlier?
Certainly there was no will. Could it of prevented the situation where IS has come to power (for want of a better word) Yes. But thats easy with hindsight to say and neither of us can sow outselves to be right there. All we can be sure of is what we did, or didn't do led us to where we are now.
[/QUOTE]
I think its interesting that the first reaction of the feeble minded is to throw an insult at others don't you
.Its been brewing far longer then that though. But he was right about what was coming
Last edited:
arclight
Oooh that burglar's a cutie
- Messages
- 11,572
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Knock eight bells out of them. Wait a minute, weve done that a few times so it may not succeed. Oh well, until someone finds a better answer other than saying we need another (unspecified) way we'll just need to do what we can (knock eight bells out of those we find).
Last week the pilot's father was saying it was not Jordan's war and that muslim must not fight muslim. Now he wants the whole friggin lot killed. Perhaps there is a strong case for "Do unto others before they do unto you".
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
For the second time, no, it's not spurious. I've explained why and I don't propose to do so a third time.
You point about what we have done in the past is self defeating, given that you imply Iraq as unlawful. If thats unlawful, then how can you complain that we did nothing in Syria's case where there was no, and no chance of UN approval?
But moving on from that, in what way could we have intervened in your opinion? It's all very well saying "Oh we should" but what intervention would have been effective?
No, I don't know thats not true, please desist from implying I know something I don't, and I doubt you do either. Like every other boarder that isn't closed, no state had the right to stop people crossing it. So, for example UKBA cannot stop me, or you leaving the UK, with one exception now (and none until 6 months ago) and traveling anywhere we liked. The same applies to Turkey.
Because NATO is a defense organization. It cannot put pressure on any state to do, or not to do anything except when one state is attacked, when it can compel all other members to defend it. To use your word, that is a spurious example, it has nothing to do with NATO.
You say yes, and I say no. But the you don't back that up with anything. Granted it's hindsight, but the point remains the same one I made above, examples of what intervention would (or may) have prevented IS rising up?
No, I think that any group who can't see the real world even though it's in front of them deserve being treated with derision.
I think the SB guy was more indicating things were coming to a head. While the rest of the UK was living in lala land on the subject. We could say that it's been brewing since Richard left Queen Barigeria in that lovely Kolossi castle to go and do battle with the heathen hordes, but I don't see that as a reason or rather underlying cause either. It's simply a desire to impose a ideal system the west wont sign up to voluntarily. In reality it's a reverse of the crusades.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
No you haven't. But to make it clear for you. Were our actions (generally) in NI legal? Perhaps they resulted in large scale refuges or us off handedly killing large numbers of civilians. See the difference yet?
Nowhere have I said Iraq was illegal. Or implied it. I'm simply stating that if its legal to invade a state for them having chemical weapons then intervening when another state uses them (illegaly) on their own citizens must also be legal.
OK then, I'll just drive up to that border. It'll be as easy to cross as leaving the UK. What with them lobbing shells and shooting down planes over it. Its not going to be like showing up at Heathrow Bernie, you know it as well as I do. Since the rebellion in Syria started (and well before that as well) thats been a seriously tense border. When my brother in law did his Turkish Millitary Service back in 2008 that was the one place you didn't want to go.
Anty military intervention that prevented things getting quite as bad in Syria as they actually did? Don't forget that civil war started long before IS came up in the area. Like you say its hindsight.
or don't agree with your view of things?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 10,358
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
With hindsight, probably not. But it's one of those "least bad action" things. It's hard to see what a sensible and achievable plan would have been, even after the event.
I think you could wargame most of the options we had and still end up in a mess.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The west can't put boots on the ground, this has to be seen as locals fighting them, Muslims against those perverting the faith. What we need to do is support, train, supply.
And maybe stop the supply of arms to Isis. Who is providing them numerous modern weapons? However what is known is the route, which is through turkey, mostly Ankara, and so pressure should also be put onto them. Deny the supplies and you limit their effectiveness to take and hold territory.
And maybe stop the supply of arms to Isis. Who is providing them numerous modern weapons? However what is known is the route, which is through turkey, mostly Ankara, and so pressure should also be put onto them. Deny the supplies and you limit their effectiveness to take and hold territory.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No. Simply because establishing a principle where another state can interfere in a minority matter in an independent state is clearly wrong. A principle would not establish a 'degree' to be met before intervention. Thats the danger. You're right, there was no widespread legality in NI by the UK Government, but the US in some quarters wouldn't agree with that assessment.
So the point isn't spurious, it's well made simply because you are reliant on someone else's idea of oppression. I would be very uncomfortable with that.
You brought up chemical weapons, which are regulated by an international convention. Syria has not agreed to that, so while outside thier boarders the use would be ilegal, it's not within. As Syria hasn't signed up to it, we can only express outrage, there are no grounds to step in in international law.
Iraq was obliged by UN order and the terms of the ceasefire after the first Gulf War to dispose of and prove they had done so, all WMD's. The second GW was because they were not complying with the second part of that. Lawfulness is a debatable issue in that invasion, I come down on the side of them not complying, thus no further UN vote was required. I am not an expert on international law though, so I conceed it could equally be argued the other way. Irrespective of that, the same argument cannot be made in Syria, for the reasons above.
It's very easy to leave the UK by car, you simply drive south from NI. No boarder at all. Never really has been one either. The boarder crossings from Turkey to Syria at Nusaybin and Akçakale are still open. A foreign national so long as they have the right paperwork cannot be stopped from crossing. Read the front page of your passport, all countries have a similar demand. It';s as simple as that. What you want might well be a good idea, but it simply cannot happen.
Like what? What do you think would have stopped it? Air strikes? Look at their Air Defence System! Not a chance in hell of that working. It would be carnage on medium altitude bombers, and not much better at low level. The 30 or so aircraft that could have been mustered from NATO would be smoking holes 5 minutes after entering Syrian airspace. Even the Israelis don't go barging into that unless they have to, and they are very experienced at dealing with Syrian counter air. You've probably not noticed, but most Western Aircraft only fly where people don't usually shoot back at them! Last time we did though, it didn't end very well for a number of RAF Aircrew.
With troops? Where do they come from? Ours were committed in Afghanistan and in any case are no where near what would be needed. The only people who might have been able to do that are the US, and that would have made matters far far worse!
Look it's a nice optimistic thought, but military intervention was never going to happen because it was never going to work.
Who have idealistic views of the world without any basis or evidence supporting the views they read in the Guardian. Sorry, I spent the last 53 years in the real world, where there are some very nasty people. The world does not run the way some thing it should.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
Nice selective quoting Bernie
you know yet again I disagree with your viewpoint but of course that's just niavity. Just out of interest though what 1st hand knowledge do you have of that border?
arclight
Oooh that burglar's a cutie
- Messages
- 11,572
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Possibly a cultural thing, but they are all pretty poor at the military thing. Also, middle east leaders may well see their own armed forces as two edged swords - one edge towards the enemy and the other towards their own government. That being so they don't want them to become too strong.
Iran is the ONLY nation in the area actually providing troops on the ground fighting against ISIL, helping the Peshmerga and the other Kurdish fighters. The Arab states do not want to interfere, because most of the funding for ISIL comes from them. Turkey is not interested in fighting ISIL, because ISIL is still fighting Assad in Syria, and Turkey wants to see Assad removed.
The so called "Arab Spring" around five years ago, was encouraged by the US (and its "hangers on), and has resulted in total chaos in Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Syria. The "big plan" was to get rid of the governments in all these places and introduce "democracy", but all it has resulted in is the growth of radical Islamic groups, including old favourites such as Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and now ISIL.
Ultimately we were responsible for the rise of ISIL, because we were so consumed by this desire to get rid of Assad, that we supported anyone who was against him.
Why don't we support the majority Shia in Bahrain against the brutal dictator there?
Could it be because the brutal dictator lets the US have its largest naval base in the Middle East there, soon to be followed by a British naval base?
No wonder the people in those countries hate us.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
mainly we and the US provided them to the fledgling Iraqi army , who promptly dropped them and ran away when ISIS turned up allowing them to steal them.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nothing selective about the quote, simply answering your point.
Byker
As BSM says at the moment they have mostly captured kit, how much longer that will last though who knows? Spare parts will run out sooner or later as will ammunition. They have the money to buy more, some donated, some nicked and some from sales of oil and if you have the cash, you can buy anything. Getting it in though is a different matter, lets hope they aren't successful in that.
arclight
Oooh that burglar's a cutie
- Messages
- 11,572
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
UAE have now pulled out of coalition airstrikes because of the risk to downed pilots. That is what we are dealing with. Things get a bit dodgy and they
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Captured stuff sure, but there's also a route for arms going through Turkey. That needs to be stopped, cut off the supplies.
The Iraqi army at times have found themselves outgunned, out numbered and as such we'd probably all retreat rapidly as well, especially with what they do to prisoners
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
You quoted my entire post, in context then. No. Let be honest Bernie. You have no more knowledge then anybody else on this subject. You like to pretend being an ex-copper gives you more somehow.
And while we're at it, how does one obtain Visa's needed to legally make the crossing from Turkey to Syria? In theory you could, but the reality is travelling to the nearest Syrian embassy ( I guess Moscow or Cario) and getting your visa may be a bit trickey. I asked you your first hand experience of the border. You ignored that too