Finally! The truth is coming out about Syria

Norwesterner

Jonny7 wrote: »

In a country where the Sunni population is estimated to be 75%, they have been ruled for four decades by an unelected Alawite minority.

It has one of the worst human rights record in the region.

I work with two Syrians who got the **** out of there in 2007. The people took to the streets because they wanted change.

They have been and are ruled by a Shia President (with a Sunni First Lady).
They have been and are ruled by a Sunni Vice President.
They have been and are ruled by a Sunni Prime Minister.
All above elected, btw.
Vast majority of M.Ps in the Assembly are Sunni.
Vast majority of Syrian Army and Air Force are Sunni.

Its probably the most diverse, cross community societies in the M.E with full rights and protection for all religions.
How would you deal with a 30 year terror campaign by extreme, Islamic fascists?
A campaign that wants to kill or expel ALL minorities from Syria.
Have you seen any Syrian citizens storming the gates of the Presidential palace in Damascus ?
No, because vast majority want him in power until the extremists are defeated.

Jonny7

All this time here was I thinking Syria was a one-family autocracy with sham elections

1971 - Hafez Al Assad 99.2% of the vote, turnout 95.8%
1978 - Hafez Al Assad 99.9% of the vote, turnout 97%
1985 - Hafez Al Assad 100% of the vote, turnout 99.4%
1991 - Hafez Al Assad 100% of the vote, turnout 99.1%
1999 - Hafez Al Assad 100% of the vote, turnout 98.5%
2000 - Bashar Al Assad 99.7% of the vote, turnout 94.6%
2007 - Bashar Al Assad 97.62% of the vote, turnout 95.86%

Eggy Baby!

riffmongous wrote: »

And what were the Chechen Wars all about then? The Georgia conflict?

The Chechen wars were to ensure the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. Chechnya had no right to secede as it was not an SSR in the Soviet Union, as opposed to Armenia, Kazakhstan etc. The second war began because Chechnya based fundamentalists actually invaded the sovereign territory of Russia so Russia came in to sort them out.

Regarding the Georgian war- the war was an interventionist exercise by Russia. I know that they defeated the Georgians in their own best interests but this in itself had the fortunate side effect of preventing the Ossetians and Abkhazians from being wiped out.

Russia is attempting to accrue influence in its "near abroad" and around the world, much like any other nation.

The Russians just eventually handled theirs better by throwing more cash at the insurgents than the Afgani - based drug traffickers. Hence the Anji football club and all the newly acquired wealth in the region that during its "independence" under Dudaev after the first Chechen conflict didn't even run schools other than religious classes, since independent Chechnya apparently did not need education even at primary level. Read up on this "independence", it really is a fascinating thing.

I agree. The Russians did have the right approach after the war. Grozny is a particular example:

It went from this:


To this:


May I ask how Iraq is doing?

Norwesterner

Jonny7 wrote: »

All this time here was I thinking Syria was a one-family autocracy with sham elections

1971 - Hafez Al Assad 99.2% of the vote, turnout 95.8%
1978 - Hafez Al Assad 99.9% of the vote, turnout 97%
1985 - Hafez Al Assad 100% of the vote, turnout 99.4%
1991 - Hafez Al Assad 100% of the vote, turnout 99.1%
1999 - Hafez Al Assad 100% of the vote, turnout 98.5%
2000 - Bashar Al Assad 99.7% of the vote, turnout 94.6%
2007 - Bashar Al Assad 97.62% of the vote, turnout 95.86%

Nice dodge.
Care to expand on your earlier claim the regime was solely Allawite, and ran the country in a sectarian manner?
The reason for Assad's clear run in elections is because the opposition is fragmented, with leaders abroad and they prefer to call for boycotts rather then stand.
Look what the Syrian people thought of their calls for boycotts.

The Western backed and recognised "Prime Minister" of Syria, is an IT technician from Texas who doesn't even hold a Syrian passport.
Nobody heard of him in Syria.
He received 35 votes in a secret meeting in Turkey.
Don't make me laugh with your version of democracy.
What should become of the 9 million who voted for Assad, Mr Champion of Democracy?
Well?

cyberhog

German intel now believes Assad regaining hold in Syria

Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), has fundamentally changed its view of the ongoing civil war in Syria. SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that the BND now believes the Syrian military of autocrat Bashar Assad is more stable than it has been in a long time and is capable of undertaking successful operations against rebel units at will.


...

Meanwhile, the BND believes that rebel forces, which include several groups of Islamist fighters with ties to al-Qaida, are facing extreme difficulties. Schindler reported that different rebel groups are fighting with each other to attain supremacy in individual regions. Furthermore, regime troops have managed to cut supply lines for weapons and evacuation routes for wounded fighters. Each new battle weakens the militias further, the BND chief said.


...Should the conflict continue as it has in recent weeks, says Schindler, government troops could retake the entire southern half of the country by the end of 2013. That would leave only the north for insurgent fighters, where Kurdish rebels have tighten control over their areas.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-intelligence-believes-assad-regime-regaining-lost-power-a-901188.html

Assad is in a very strong position indeed. The rebels have been getting a pasting in Damascus, Aleppo, and Homs and are being forced to retreat to the countryside where they will be easily spotted by the Syrian Air Force. It's quite clear the way things are going that the end is drawing close for the rebels.

halkar

Middle east and north africa is made up of many tribes. People will vote only to whom their tribal leaders tell them to vote. Once you buy the tribal leaders you buy all the tribe's votes. As long as people are not educated properly these regions will never see western style democracy. One tyrant will go other will come elected or not. And sometimes with the western backing.

Jonny7

Nope, the opposition was banned in Syria over three decades ago. Most if not all prominent heads and figures within the opposition don't reside in Syria because they would face imprisonment, death or far worse.

It's been ranked second only to N Korea in terms of freedom, not surprising considering it's been under "emergency rule" for half a century.

Millions of Syrians "voted" for Bashar, the same way millions of Iraqis "voted" for Saddam, the same way millions of North Koreans very vocally "embraced" their new dictator for life. Odd that it coincidentally happens under such a climate of fear and surveillance..

Speaking of which, everything is monitored and controlled and watched by several levels of secret police and the interior, Syria even has it's very own version of the Balkan "Arkan's Tigers", the Shabiha, Bashar's throat-slitting pro-Baathist militia.. supplemented by a balaclava clad "home-guard", thousands of fiercely loyal mainly Alawite men with AK-47s and heavy machine guns.. lovely eh

There is no reason to address the rest because Syria is not a democracy and cannot be judged nor revised as such.

Norwesterner

Jonny7 wrote: »

Nope, the opposition was banned in Syria over three decades ago. Most if not all prominent heads and figures within the opposition don't reside in Syria because they would face imprisonment, death or far worse.

It's been ranked second only to N Korea in terms of freedom, not surprising considering it's been under "emergency rule" for half a century.

Millions of Syrians "voted" for Bashar, the same way millions of Iraqis "voted" for Saddam, the same way millions of North Koreans very vocally "embraced" their new dictator for life. Odd that it coincidentally happens under such a climate of fear and surveillance..

Speaking of which, everything is monitored and controlled and watched by several levels of secret police and the interior, Syria even has it's very own version of the Balkan "Arkan's Tigers", the Shabiha, Bashar's throat-slitting pro-Baathist militia.. supplemented by a balaclava clad "home-guard", thousands of fiercely loyal mainly Alawite men with AK-47s and heavy machine guns.. lovely eh

There is no reason to address the rest because Syria is not a democracy and cannot be judged nor revised as such.

Utter lies.
The only groups banned were extremist islamic groups.
Just as they are banned in Europe, the U.S, and recently in Arab Spring protaganist Tunisia.
We're talking about the same kind of groups calling for Sharia Law, extermination of minorities, oppression of women etc.
They were responsible for a series of massacres in the early 80s in Syria, and had links to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (then controlled by current Al Qaeda leader Dr. Al Zawahiri).
The Syrian Assembly contains a number of opposition parties who reject Assad but also oppose the foreign backed coup.
We saw how the British public and state reacted to the actions of just Salafists in London.
Now imagine if there were thousands of these characters running riot in the country.
Assad has been reserved and controlled in my opinion, and this is why the Syrian public are rallying behind him.
He has played a game of chess and has hurt Al Qaeda more than the US-UK and NATO combined.

Norwesterner

Jonny doubts 9 million voted for Assad.
Here's a multi-denominational rally in support of the legitimate President that occured in the middle of total war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7zFUaDOPCE
1 million estimated to have turned out..
Do these people look forced, afraid, uneducated or brainwashed?
What patronising nonsense!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNU2j9eFC_8
Of course this did not fit the MSM narrative, and was promptly censored from the networks.
Meanwhile a Texan with 35 votes and no Syrian passport is described as the "legitimate Prime Minister".

This war is coming to an end, and the good guys have won this time.

Seaneh

I really cannot understand how the west hasn't learned it's lesson by now. They are making the exact same mistake they made in the 80's in Afghanistan by arming the Mujahideen. And we all know just how brilliantly that turned out.

The foreign "insurgents" in syria are the exact same foreign Mujahideen who went on to become the Taliban in Afghanistan, who get their ideology from the exact same places. People like Ayman al-Zawahiri and Saif al-Adel and radical saudi and yemeni backed imams like Anwar Al-Awlaki.

The cluster**** that was Afghanistan is just being replayed a few thousand km west.

Jonny7

Seaneh wrote: »

I really cannot understand how the west hasn't learned it's lesson by now. They are making the exact same mistake they made in the 80's in Afghanistan by arming the Mujahideen. And we all know just how brilliantly that turned out.

The foreign "insurgents" in syria are the exact same foreign Mujahideen who went on to become the Taliban in Afghanistan, who get their ideology from the exact same places. People like Ayman al-Zawahiri and Saif al-Adel and radical saudi and yemeni backed imams like Anwar Al-Awlaki.

The cluster**** that was Afghanistan is just being replayed a few thousand km west.

Actually I agree somewhat, there's a hint of truth to this.. however the "West" is still dawdling on the decision to openly and directly arm the rebels. Too many unpleasant groups.

Rest of thread getting too tinfoil hat and oddly familiar, just replaced Gadaffi with Bashar

cyberhog

Seaneh wrote: »

I really cannot understand how the west hasn't learned it's lesson by now. They are making the exact same mistake they made in the 80's in Afghanistan by arming the Mujahideen. And we all know just how brilliantly that turned out.

The foreign "insurgents" in syria are the exact same foreign Mujahideen who went on to become the Taliban in Afghanistan, who get their ideology from the exact same places. People like Ayman al-Zawahiri and Saif al-Adel and radical saudi and yemeni backed imams like Anwar Al-Awlaki.

The cluster**** that was Afghanistan is just being replayed a few thousand km west.

You are absolutely correct. In fact, it was documented as early as 2007 by Seymour Hersh in a New Yorker article.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all

The West has made an enormous mistake in Syria. Russia has been right all along. The outcome of all the present miss is countless dead, a country and a generation destroyed, an even more unstable government in an unstable region and more extreme terrorism to blight us all.
Working with the regime to improve things over years would have been the better option. The "Arab Spring" isn't developing into an "Arab Summer".

AlekSmart

Deleted User wrote: »

The West has hade an enormous mistake in Syria. Russia has been right all along. The outcome of all the present miss is countless dead, a country and a generation destroyed, an even more unstable government in an unstable region and more extreme terrorism to blight us all.
Working with the regime to improve things over years would have been the better option. The "Arab Spring" isn't developing into an "Arab Summer".

To use an old LBJ'ism,"Better to have your enemies inside the tent pissing out,than outside it pissing in".

If the coalition "Partners" can be persuaded to hold-off on any great statement of solidarity with the Syrian People,ie: further resourcing the FSA,then some progress may yet be possible.

However,I suspect following on the success of their Libyan experiment,certain sections of the Western Powers will want to keep her lit,as it were.

The issue does keep returning to the Major Powers (more particularly their leaders and advisers) having no real understanding of,or affinity with the peoples of these regions.

As with Amerika's South-East Asian adventures in the 1950's,sending planeloads of Coca-Cola,Dr Peppers and Cookies n Fudge is not showing one's respect for the cultures concerned.

Al Assad is still running Syria because,as yet,his opponents have not proven that he was/is unpopular enough to be ousted...that's what it boils down to.

Great swathes of the country lie in ruins,withcountless innocent casualities,yet the Popular "Free" Syrian Army struggle to maintain their own cohesion,let alone mount a singluar focused offensive.

We already know that the usual-suspects have provided,and continue to provide non-military aid to the FSA grouping,which can cover a multitude of categories and most assuredly can serve a military purpose,so we can be assured that the FSA have a degree of significant active support,yet remain incapable of defeating the sitting tenant.

I suspect Dr Donkey may be on the money here,as much as it may stick in the craw of many,Russia has called it correctly for once,and perhaps the West (and Syrias innocent sufferers) might be better served by publicly admitting it.

Jonny7

Russia is largely protecting it's last naval powerbase in the region and fulfilling arms contracts. They don't have public outcry not press backlash to worry about.

The UN has tried multiple times under various plans, the Arab league also sent their mission and had to withdraw. The international press has largely been banned. Apart from Iran and Russia, the Syrian leadership is pretty isolated, and generally considered illegitimate by most countries.

The regime has never been interested in any peace plan that doesn't involve it not holding onto power. Obviously Assad could have stepped down or held free and fair elections.. like any normal leader.

Nope, like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya and so on.. protesters are labelled "terrorists" as part of a greater nefarious plot to usurp said paranoid ruling family from power - and the violent crack-down begins.

Assad just has much greater control over the military and secret police than his counterparts, ensuing his longer survival.

Eggy Baby!

Russia isn't concerned about its naval base in Tartus. The base in question is pretty minor. It is concerned that jihadis, directly or indirectly funded by western/middle eastern governments, will assume control of Syria or a large portion thereof.

Russia's decisions are founded on a belief that there is a strong chance that Syria may be governed by extremists if the revolution is successful. If this were to happen, the volatile regions of the Caucasus might once again be inflamed. Russia has spent a great deal of time and effort taming these regions and the presence of a giant jihadi playground on it's doorstep wouldn't help whatsoever.

Notice how Russia was passively supportive of the Iraq War until it turned into a sectarian nightmare? You can see how anti-Iraq the Russians are now given the fact that people might be radicalised in Iraq only to form empathy with their Chechen extremist-brothers.

The Russians have been for the Afghan war since its beginning as it is largely a war against fundamentalists. It owns bases in much of Central Asia in order to assure the dominance of secularism there.

I think its important to understand the motivations of the different factions here.

But as for the western states, I'm not sure. If you believe all the rhetoric about bringing democracy, one might conclude that they make decisions based on idealism as compared to Russian pragmatism.

Nevertheless, they may be in for a rude awakening if they expect western/gulf-backed jihadis to repay them in kind if they take control.

Jonny7

We'll have to agree to disagree over Russia.. the Syrians had billions in arms contracts with the Kremlin still to be fulfilled (in which billions in debt was wiped off to facilitate) and Syria is one of the last spheres of influence Russia has in the region, and in the Mediterranean. Russia knew that any opposition government that took power in Syria would be against Russia interests and actively work against them.

They also knew they could block any UN resolutions.

Russia's actions are purely political and in it's own interests.

No one wants extremists and few want the Muslim Brotherhood in power, lest of all the yanks - the status quo suited everyone better.. (except for the Syrians people of course)

Whilst tolerated or supported dictators such as Karimov in Uzbekistan, rewarding the Burmese junta and giving concessions to North Korea may be debatable.. openly supporting a dictator who is, by any human rights organisation, slaughtering his own people just to stay in power - is morally repugnant. It's not the Cold War anymore, European nations nor the US can do that, and have openly stated they support the Arab spring (little more limited when it comes to Saudi Arabia).

At the end of the day it's fairly clear what is right and wrong here.

The Russian government no more cares about the plight of the Syrian people than Netanyahu cares about those in Rafah.

Those who constantly point fingers at the US for supporting South American dictators while they tortured and oppressed the populace - need to seriously think about how contradictory their support for Russia is in the present Syrian situation.

Norwesterner

In his December speech, Assad promised a new Constitution, a new Bill of Rights, a Referendum, and a vow to leave if and when the Syrians decide.
The FSA rejected this.
They have no interest in democracy, Bills of Rights , referendums. For many of them such ideals an "Un-Islamic".
The World has turned upside down, with the only entities actively defending Middle East Christians is the Syrian Army, Hezbollah, former USSR Communists and Iranian guards.
And Irish Times and Guardian readers backing the head-hacking, sectarian death squads

Eggy Baby!

In his December speech, Assad promised a new Constitution, a new Bill of Rights, a Referendum, and a vow to leave if and when the Syrians decide.

Haha I doubt Assad Junior was ever going to deliver on those lofty promises.... you can't just introduce these things overnight!

We'll have to agree to disagree over Russia.. the Syrians had billions in arms contracts with the Kremlin still to be fulfilled (in which billions in debt was wiped off to facilitate) and Syria is one of the last spheres of influence Russia has in the region, and in the Mediterranean. Russia knew that any opposition government that took power in Syria would be against Russia interests and actively work against them.

Regarding the opposition movement: it's almost certain that if Assad is overthrown that radical islamists will have at least some influence within the Syrian government. As such, I agree that any opposition that wrests control of Syria will be anti-Russian, primarily because the Russian support to Assad but also they will sympathise with the Chechens.

It's been ranked second only to N Korea in terms of freedom

By whom? By "it's been ranked" do you mean "it's been ranked by me"? This is a remarkably rhetorical and subjective statement.

The World has turned upside down, with the only entities actively defending Middle East Christians is the Syrian Army, Hezbollah, former USSR Communists and Iranian guards.

Who are these former USSR Communists?

Those who constantly point fingers at the US for supporting South American dictators while they tortured and oppressed the populace - need to seriously think about how contradictory their support for Russia is in the present Syrian situation.

These two situations are cut from a different cloth altogether.

Russia's actions are purely political and in it's own interests.

Obviously. I don't know whether or not you are implying that I said otherwise but Russia isn't being altruistic here. It is protecting it's own hide. If tens of thousands of Syrians are killed so that 145 million Russians can have security then the Russians won't feel particularly regretful.

openly supporting a dictator who is, by any human rights organisation, slaughtering his own people just to stay in power - is morally repugnant. It's not the Cold War anymore, European nations nor the US can do that, and have openly stated they support the Arab spring (little more limited when it comes to Saudi Arabia).

The whole idea here is that the conflict is VERY morally grey. While Assad is a truly horrid dictator, the people he is fighting against use child soldiers (illegally)- including a Muslim from my old school who was indoctrinated in Libya and went off to Syria to fight (he passed away there unfortunately)- they murder prisoners- including one group which boasted about murdering hundreds- desecrate corpses, use populated residential areas for shelter and massacre innocents.

It's a morally grey conflict. If it was a Manichaeistic fight between bold boy Assad and the FSA- the shining beacon of democracy and totally not a proxy for unscrupulous regional powers and definitely not fundamentalist in any way- there would be no debate on it or hesitation to get things done.

Its realpolitik, and although it may be heinous and seem unfair, I understand the Russian motivations and I would damn well do the same in their position.

It doesn't matter whether it's the Cold War any more or not. Power plays went on before the Cold War and they will continue until the end of nations.

No one wants extremists and few want the Muslim Brotherhood in power, lest of all the yanks - the status quo suited everyone better.. (except for the Syrians people of course)

That is very debatable. Syria may or may not seem post-apocalyptic after this civil war is over. Perhaps they will be yearning for the "golden days" of Assad (I use that term VERY loosely).

The Russian government no more cares about the plight of the Syrian people than Netanyahu cares about those in Rafah.

The Russians care about their own people, not the Syrians. I didn't say that they wished the Syrians well. If the interests of the Russians align with those of the Syrian people then that will be by pure, unintentional coincidence.

At the end of the day it's fairly clear what is right and wrong here.

What is right and what is wrong here?


Just an aside, unrelated your post, Jonny.

I've noticed that people who are anti-Assad on these matters tend to have a deep distrust of the Russians, and that those who are anti-FSA tend to have a deep distrust of the Americans. I just find it strange and unusual that factions are defined by who supports them as opposed to their ideals or actions.

As for me, I'm somewhere in between. I understand that the Russians are in it for themselves but I feel that my Russophilia sometimes gets in the way for an objective assessment of the Russians. Regarding the Americans, I've presumably accrued a reputation on the politics forums by this stage as having opinions that are anti-American foreign policy but I do try to view these situations objectively. The Americans are of course in it for themselves. It goes without saying.

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Regarding the opposition movement: it's almost certain that if Assad is overthrown that radical islamists will have at least some influence within the Syrian government.

Now moreso than spring 2011.

Once the uprising starts, the clock starts. Too long and the damage will become irreparable. For example, it was a very close call for Libya.

By whom? By "it's been ranked" do you mean "it's been ranked by me"? This is a remarkably rhetorical and subjective statement.

By an organisation, I'm not sure the source, most likely HRW or Amnesty

These two situations are cut from a different cloth altogether.

It's an example of a contradiction that arises when a poster is more interested in being partisan or an agenda against a particular power, e.g. US or Russia

Obviously. I don't know whether or not you are implying that I said otherwise but Russia isn't being altruistic here. It is protecting it's own hide. If tens of thousands of Syrians are killed so that 145 million Russians can have security then the Russians won't feel particularly regretful.

No disagreements there

The whole idea here is that the conflict is VERY morally grey. While Assad is a truly horrid dictator, the people he is fighting against use child soldiers (illegally)- including a Muslim from my old school who was indoctrinated in Libya and went off to Syria to fight (he passed away there unfortunately)- they murder prisoners- including one group which boasted about murdering hundreds- desecrate corpses, use populated residential areas for shelter and massacre innocents.

The conflict has morphed and escalated.

For examples, the Allies on the Western front in WW1 and the Russians on the Eastern front in 1945 did unspeakable things, however they were not the cause of the conflict so to speak.

We know a tiny fraction of the atrocities and horror being inflicted on both sides in Syria right now - however if Assad had stepped down, not resorted to using such severe violence on protesters, if Russia and China had supported UN resolutions, if the regime had supported the Arab league peace plan or many other plans.. there were many points at which the conflict could have possibly been contained or stopped

Most of the decisions and responsibility ultimately lay with the ruling family. They chose to hold onto power at any cost.

It's a morally grey conflict. If it was a Manichaeistic fight between bold boy Assad and the FSA- the shining beacon of democracy and totally not a proxy for unscrupulous regional powers and definitely not fundamentalist in any way- there would be no debate on it or hesitation to get things done.

There was a point early in the conflict, between March and about July, when the FSA was forming and largely defected military and Syrian nationals from all backgrounds - then it was more black and white.

However that opportunity has passed.

Its realpolitik, and although it may be heinous and seem unfair, I understand the Russian motivations and I would damn well do the same in their position.

The Russians care about their own people, not the Syrians. I didn't say that they wished the Syrians well. If the interests of the Russians align with those of the Syrian people then that will be by pure, unintentional coincidence.

The eternal battle of realpolitik vs human decency.

Yet if there's an earthquake, everyone drops the politics and provides support.

I've noticed that people who are anti-Assad on these matters tend to have a deep distrust of the Russians, and that those who are anti-FSA tend to have a deep distrust of the Americans. I just find it strange and unusual that factions are defined by who supports them as opposed to their ideals or actions.

Some are anti-US, some are anti-NATO, some anti-Arab, anti-Israel and yes some even anti-Russian - and yes there is a distinct pattern and agenda at play in each case (and very easy to spot if you ask me)

e.g. it's difficult for many to look at the Palestinian conflict objectively - simply because it's so easy to fall into either camp.

For me, the Russians will act overly in their own interests, very similar to China (at present) - simply because they can, the US/Europe have more "restraints". However there is no ideological rift like the Cold War, there's much less venom between the major powers.

As for me, I'm somewhere in between. I understand that the Russians are in it for themselves but I feel that my Russophilia sometimes gets in the way for an objective assessment of the Russians. Regarding the Americans, I've presumably accrued a reputation on the politics forums by this stage as having opinions that are anti-American foreign policy but I do try to view these situations objectively. The Americans are of course in it for themselves. It goes without saying.

I was strongly against the last US administration, largely supportive of the current admin - governments change, policy changes, perspectives change.

A good barometer for balanced views are definitely countries like Norway, Netherlands, etc - with less agenda, the highest press freedom, educated population.

Yet we all know, by our standards, that what was happening in Syria was wrong - we wouldn't stand for it from any of our leaders. If Enda Kenny refused to step down, stuffed every high ranking post with his extended family, eliminated the opposition and killed family members who dared to protest it - obviously we can't even envisage such a scenario because it's so ridiculous and alien..

Yet in the 21st century we still have nations similar to the above and some worse than that, modern kings and pointless human suffering in a vicious circle, the Arab spring was the one chance many of these countries had to break out of that.

When Gbagbo illegally refused to ceed power in Ivory coast, the UN and France made a strong early decision and went in there and took him out. Blood was spilled and people died, but what was the cost if they didn't get rid of him.. certain civil war.

Countries like Egypt and Libya are in the fledging stages of democracy, they still have a whole new beast to deal with - Islam and politics - but they are out of the vicious cycle of autocracy, they at least have hope on the horizon. Unless they descend back into it, it can only get better for them, people should get more enlightened, get more rights, equality, and so on - yes it can be a painfully slow process, but they are already light years ahead of a country like North Korea - which will perpetually stay as it is, stuck in a 1950's Cold War timewarp, millions suffering for the whims of a few.

Maybe one day Libya and Egypt will be like Sweden or Norway. That wasn't a possibility before.

Syria on the other hand is ****ed and only getting worse. That golden opportunity is slipping away. The future Congo/Somalia of the Middle East.

the_syco

cyberhog wrote: »

we can add President Obama to the list of people meddling in Syria for selfish reasons.

Are you saying if Obama didn't help, you wouldn't be moaning that Obama is cold -hearted for not helping the people of Syria?

cyberhog

the_syco wrote: »

Are you saying if Obama didn't help, you wouldn't be moaning that Obama is cold -hearted for not helping the people of Syria?

That is a ridiculous argument. It is Western countries' policies that have created the chaos in Syria, just as they did in Iraq and Libya.

Norwesterner

Why don't we sit back, take a few minutes and listen to what the Syrian people think of the FSA.
You know....the opinions we are restricted from hearing in our media due to political censorship and media conditioning.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e3f_1369606953
God knows what these people think of us in Europe for the shameless funding of extremists.

Sierra Oscar

Its interesting to note the battle which has emerged within the British media following the Woolwich attacks. You have the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, seeking to argue that the UK needs to do more to support the rebels as the current instability is helping to foster 'extremism'. However there are a whole bunch of other commentators who are arguing that arming the rebels will make matters worse and will entrench extremism.

Interestingly, public opinion for arming the rebels is quite low throughout Europe and within the United States.

Seaneh

What isn't being reported, at all, by the media in Europe is what is happeneing to Syria's Christian population.

10% of all syrian citizens are Christians mostly in Aleppo, Homs and Tartous but there are large groups of Christians in Damascus, Al-Suwayda and Al-Hasakah.

The the regions with large christian populations which have been over run with FSA/other groups in the last 2 years the Christian population has been singled out for special punishment. Churches are being shelled, priests and bishops are being kidnapped, women are being raped. In Aleppo after the FSA were driven out the local christians were lining the streets in their neighbourhoods thanking the Syrian Arab Army for "saving" them from the islamists.

I think Al-Assad is a despot, and he needs to go. But he needs to go through constitutional change, elections and with a democratic process in place. What is happening now is radical islamist groups are all banding together to force him out and then fight over the carcass until one of them gets to impose their own brand of crazy extremeism on the rest of the country.

Even the Texan "prime minister" who the US hand picked for the "elections" in Turkey last year has strong links to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the FSA has refused to accept him, so if As-Assad fell tomorrow and the "interim government" tried to take control, the FSA would just assassinate all of them, within days, and assume control, until another faction usurped them.
The only way any sort of stability comes out of this is if the Syrian Arab Army wins the civil war and Al-Assad resumes full control of the country and then people make it clear they want democratic change.
He has already promised a constitution and elections if the fighting stops.

Sierra Oscar

Seaneh wrote: »

What isn't being reported, at all, by the media in Europe is what is happeneing to Syria's Christian population ...

... The the regions with large christian populations which have been over run with FSA/other groups in the last 2 years the Christian population has been singled out for special punishment ...
.

Agreed that there hasn't been much coverage on the plight of the Christians. I remember RTE did an interview with a nun in Syria at some point last year, and listeners were outraged that she was highlighting that they were better off under Assad.

Duggys Housemate

The plight of Chistians in the ME is rarely reported in any context.

Jonny7

Seaneh wrote: »

then people make it clear they want democratic change.

In the absence of elections, they already did.

As the uprising began, the Syrian government waged a campaign of arrests that had caught tens of thousands of people, according to lawyers and activists in Syria and human rights groups. In response to the uprising, Syrian law had been changed to allow the police and any of the nation's 18 security forces to detain a suspect for eight days without a warrant. Arrests focused on two groups: political activists, and men and boys from the towns that the Syrian Army would start to besiege in April.[124] Many of those detained experienced various forms of torture and ill-treatment. Many detainees were cramped in tight rooms and were given limited resources, and some were beaten, electrically jolted, or debilitated. At least 27 torture centers, run by Syrian intelligence agencies, were revealed by Human Rights Watch on 3 July 2012.[125]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

cyberhog

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The plight of Chistians in the ME is rarely reported in any context.

Well, the Australian Christian Lobby has accused the West of "pursuing irrational policies" that are hurting Syria's Christains.

Jim Wallace
From: The Australian
May 28, 2013 12:00AM

... As I visited the area recently to assess the situation of minorities in the Syrian conflict, it quickly became evident that the West's policy there courts a disaster.

There are reports of heartbreak as people who lived in harmony for decades are suddenly turned into bitter enemies by the radicalisation of previously moderate Sunnis under the influence of the al-Qa'ida proxy Jabhat al-Nusra.

Syria has always been somewhat unusual in the Arab world for its secularism and religious freedom.

When I lived in Damascus for six months, Christian churches were easy to find and join. There was also a ready acceptance by Muslims and Druze, many of whom became good friends. And it seems this continued to be the case until the revolution two years ago. Then cries of "Alawites out" and "Christians to Lebanon" suddenly filled the air in crowds stirred up by extremists.

Al-Nusra empties any area it captures of the "infidels". Occupants of centuries-old Christian quarters in the ancient cities of Aleppo, Hama and Homs have been turned out of their homes with nothing. The aged are not spared and those refusing to leave are sometimes killed.

Also heartbreaking for these ancient communities is that their churches in the occupied parts of these cities have been destroyed and desecrated, at least one being used as a toilet by al-Nusra, as an illustration of its utter contempt for Christianity.


These are ancient Christian communities that look to Western governments not to abandon them by pursuing irrational policies, including a partnership with foreign jihadists allied to al-Qa'ida.

It is long past time for the West to make a stand in two other areas that are essential to combating Muslim extremism at home and abroad.

The first is that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are funding the extremist al-Qa'ida fighters, must be told to back off.In addition we cannot accept that as many as 200 Australians might be fighting for al-Qa'ida in Syria as part of a contingent of foreign fighters drawn from Western and Middle Eastern Islamic communities.

All Western countries must pass and enforce anti-mercenary laws that will forbid their nationals from fighting as mercenaries without losing their nationality.

We have an army to fight our wars and joining it should be the only way for an Australian to become a combatant.

The so-called Arab Spring was never going to be that for anyone but extremists across the Middle East. Unless the West reconsiders its support to an opposition dominated by al-Qa'ida, vulnerable Syrian Christians will face even worse persecution than that experienced by Egypt's Copts.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/west-must-act-decisively-to-protect-syrias-persecuted-christians/story-e6frgd0x-1226651663411

Western powers make a huge stink about the evils of the Syrian regime, and yet they continue to pursue policies that lead to the persecution of Syria's minorities. Any honest observer can see there are no good guys on either side of this proxy war. Obama and his cohorts are just as despicable as Assad.

Norwesterner

Jonny7 wrote: »

In the absence of elections, they already did.

As the uprising began, the Syrian government waged a campaign of arrests that had caught tens of thousands of people, according to lawyers and activists in Syria and human rights groups. In response to the uprising, Syrian law had been changed to allow the police and any of the nation's 18 security forces to detain a suspect for eight days without a warrant. Arrests focused on two groups: political activists, and men and boys from the towns that the Syrian Army would start to besiege in April.[124] Many of those detained experienced various forms of torture and ill-treatment. Many detainees were cramped in tight rooms and were given limited resources, and some were beaten, electrically jolted, or debilitated. At least 27 torture centers, run by Syrian intelligence agencies, were revealed by Human Rights Watch on 3 July 2012.[125]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

The Muslim Brotherhood campaign of car bombs and assasinations in Syria predates all that by about 20 years.
Since the early 80's in fact.
Brush up on your research.
These people arrested are dangerous individuals similar to the ten rounded up in London since yesterday.
Should the British not be arresting these indivuals?

Jimmy Garlic

You couldn't make it up really. The EU has lifted the arms embargo. Todays "rebels" will be tomorrows terrorists and an excuse to keep the so called war on terror going. The fact that these fundi nutbags were funded and encouraged by the west will go down the memory hole. The west deliberately creates its own enemies and the biggest winner is the military industrial complex.

The US, the UK, France, Israel etc don't give a crap about freedom or the Syrian people. All their talk about freedom and democracy is bunkum to feed to the gullible.

Jonny7

Yup it's pretty controversial, not sure I fully agree with it.. depends on how it is implemented

On the one hand, France, Britain and countries like Turkey are trying to ensure that arms go to the moderate opposition, Syrians, whom still make up the bulk of the rebels

It allows them to also monitor arms - avoiding the likes of Al-Nusra and so on.

They believe a stronger rebel force could also push Assad to the table (exile would be pretty favorable right now)

On the other hand, others see it as prolonging the conflict and not being a diplomatic solution - then again, the conflict is showing no signs of abating in the near future - and peace avenues have been repeatedly shut down.

And for the tinfoil heads - no, the Arab spring is not a plot to insert Islamic fundamentalists in power anywhere, that includes Syria. To insinuate the West, especially the US, has that as some sort of motive is pretty.. out there

Seaneh

Statement from Hezbollah Leader Hasan Nasrallah

"We regard the control these groups have over Syria, and specifically over parts of Syria bordering Lebanon, as a grave danger to Lebanon and a grave danger to all Lebanese. It is not only a danger to Hizbullah, or to the Shia of Lebanon, it is a danger to Lebanon and the Lebanese and the Resistance and communal coexistence in Lebanon. If these groups control areas bordering Lebanon they pose a threat to Lebanese Christians and Muslims, and when I say “Muslims” I means Sunnis, Druze, Shia and Alawites. I don’t just mean Shia, it is the Sunnis who are first and foremost in danger. The proof of this is Iraq. The same groups fighting in Syria today are an extension of a group there called “the Islamic state of Iraq”. Just ask Iraqi Sunnis how many of their Sunni clerics and Islamic party leaders this group killed; leaders who didn’t follow it. How many mosques in Anbar, Fallujah and Mosul, not merely Shia mosques and Christian churches? This organization boasts of carrying out 4 000 or 5 000 suicide attacks in Iraq. Most of these operations have targeted Iraqis of all sects, religions and ethnicities.

A week ago there was an election in Pakistan. You know what is problem with takfiri thought? They accuse others of apostasy over the most trivial matters, not merely for ideological or sectarian reasons, but for political reasons too. Whoever participates in the parliamentary elections is also an apostate; [shedding] his blood becomes permissible….This is the takfiri mind. He doesn’t differentiate between Sunni, Shia, Muslim, Christian, it makes no difference…They killed people at polling booths in all Iraqi provinces. How many people were killed in Pakistan a week ago? And most of those killed in Pakistan, in electoral campaigns and polling booths, were Sunni Muslims and Sunni clerics. The Pakistani Taliban killed them because they consider participation in the parliamentary elections as apostasy. In just 4 countries—Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia—there were many more Sunnis killed than other Muslims or Christians.

Tunisia and Libya are suffering from this [takfiri] scourge today; those states which created and exported this scourge suffered from it. And we have been promised here in Lebanon that this scourge is coming our way. This is the danger. This mind does not accept dialogue…it has no priorities or common denominators. All it does is declare others apostates for the most trivial reasons, and it sanctions their killing. What future can there be for Syria amidst these groups and this mind? What future for Lebanon? What future for Palestine? What future for the people of this region?

We do not approach the problem from the perspective of Sunnis versus Shia as some have accused of us doing. Our approach is that all Muslims and Christians are threatened by this mind and trend and thought, which is creeping its way into our region."

A lot of what he says there, makes a lot of sense.

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

On the one hand, France, Britain and countries like Turkey are trying to ensure that arms go to the moderate opposition, Syrians, whom still make up the bulk of the rebels

It allows them to also monitor arms - avoiding the likes of Al-Nusra and so on.

McClatchy reports that US vetted "moderate" rebels have been sharing their newly aquired weapons with Islamist extremists.

“Of course they share their weapons with us,” said Ali Ankir, a spokesman for Ahrar al Sham. “We fight together.”

...

The new weapons are a far cry from the light weapons the rebels in this part of Syria possessed when the largely peaceful uprising against the Assad regime became violent in the spring and summer of 2011. But as the rebels’ backers step up military and other aid, the battle for this city reveals the difficulty of controlling which of the myriad rebel groups take possession of that aid.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/02/28/184493/rebel-cooperation-in-syrian-town.html

Jonny7 wrote: »

They believe a stronger rebel force could also push Assad to the table (exile would be pretty favorable right now)

Why do you write such nonsense?

Assad doesn't need pushing, Damascus has been willing to negotiate with the rebels since 2011.


Jun 20, 2011 - Syria’s Assad offers dialogue, rejects ‘chaos’
Mar 9, 2012 - Syria: opposition rejects call for dialogue
Sep 21, 2012 - Assad says rebels will not win, calls for dialogue
Oct 2 2012 - Rebels reject Syrian calls for dialogue
Jan 6 2013 - Syria's Assad calls for national dialogue to end conflict
Jan 7 2013 - Assad's call for talks dismissed as 'a waste of time' by Syrian opposition
Feb 25 2013 - Syria crisis: foreign minister offers talks with rebels

The so-called "moderate" rebels have resisted dialogue at every turn.

The Syrian National Council, the main component of the opposition, has dismissed the possibility of any negotiations.

It said it was committed to ousting the Assad regime, rejecting dialogue with it, and protecting the revolution.

http://news.sky.com/story/1048657/iran-syrias-assad-regime-ready-to-negotiate

The plan to arm "moderates" is hopelessly flawed. Any lethal assistance provided by France and Britain will only exacerbate the situation and lead to more violence.

cyberhog

Here's some more truth about the so-called "moderate" rebels from one of the original organisers of the peaceful demonstrations that took place in Aleppo.

Away from all the agendas, whitewashing, propaganda, and outright lies of the global media stations, what we saw on the ground when the rebel fighters entered Aleppo was a far different reality. It hit home hard. It was a shock, especially to those of us who had supported and believed in the uprising all along. It was the ultimate betrayal.

To us, a rebel fighting against tyranny doesn’t commit the same sort of crimes as the regime he’s supposed to be fighting against. He doesn’t loot the homes, businesses and communities of the people he’s supposed to be fighting for. Yet, as the weeks went by in Aleppo, it became increasingly clear that this was exactly what was happening.

Rebels would systematically loot the neighborhoods they entered. They had very little regard for the lives and property of the people, and would even kidnap for ransom and execute anyone they pleased with little recourse to any form of judicial process. They would deliberately vandalize and destroy ancient and historical landmarks and icons of the city. They would strip factories and industrial zones bare, even down to the electrical wiring, hauling their loot of expensive industrial machinery and infrastructure off across the border to Turkey to be sold at a fraction of its price. Shopping malls were emptied, warehouses, too. They stole the grain in storage silos, creating a crisis and a sharp rise in staple food costs. They would incessantly shell residential civilian neighborhoods under regime control with mortars, rocket fire and car bombs, causing death and injury to countless innocent people, their snipers routinely killing in cold blood unsuspecting passersby. As a consequence, tens of thousands became destitute and homeless in this once bustling, thriving and rich commercial metropolis.

But why was this so? Why were they doing it? It became apparent soon enough, that it was simply a case of us versus them. They were the underprivileged rural class who took up arms and stormed the city, and they were out for revenge against the perceived injustices of years past. Their motivation wasn’t like ours, it was not to seek freedom, democracy or justice for the entire nation, it was simply unbridled hatred and vengeance for themselves.

Rebel profiteer warlords soon became household names, their penchant for looting and spreading terror among the populace inducing far more bitterness and bile than what was felt against the regime and its forces.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/05/syria-revolution-aleppo-assad.html

The armed opposition in Syria are NOT freedom fighters. They are a collection of thugs, thieves, and cold-blooded killers, and it sickens me to see countries like Britain and France pushing to provide them with lethal assistance.

I think Britain and France should cop themselves on because there is no way Russia is going to allow Syria fall to those rebels.

MOSCOW, May 28 (RIA Novosti) – Four regiments of S-300 air defense systems have been deployed at the Ashuluk firing range in southern Russia as part of another snap combat readiness check of the Russian armed forces, the Defense Ministry said.

The regiments were airlifted on Thursday by military transport planes to designated drop zones where they will carry out a variety of missions simulating the defense of the Russian airspace from massive attacks by “enemy” missiles and aircraft.

“The missions will be carried out in conditions of heavy electronic warfare to test the capabilities of the air defense units to the highest limit,” the ministry said.

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130528/181379250/S-300-Air-Defense-Systems-Deployed-at-Snap-Alert-Drills.html

Suff

Jonny7 wrote: »

On the one hand, France, Britain and countries like Turkey are trying to ensure that arms go to the moderate opposition, Syrians, whom still make up the bulk of the rebels

The way I see it, the term 'moderate' is dropped the minute the opposition take arms.


The opposition structure was of human rights activists, 'known' internal and exiled opposition leaders, political figures and volunteers who worked together in organising the peaceful demonstrations we saw in March 2011.

One of most respect opposition figures, Dr. Haytham Al Manna stated in an interview on the lebanese news TV Al Mayadeen, that the opposition were offered weapons to fight the regime from the very first days of the revolution (mainly by Qatar, Saudi and Turkey) these offers were refused which didn't sit well with 'Friends of Syria' so they axed him and formed another collation.

This opposition did manage to change its face so many times that even their allies can't keep up with it. Qatar is pushing their own agenda, while Saudi is fighting it inside closed doors to apply their own, and Turkey now is facing internal scrutiny over its foreign policy 'Syria'.

It's a proxy war, it was never about democracy or the freedom of the Syrian people, it's about how to destroy a country and benefit from it.

FTA69

Honestly like, when Hizbollah accuse people of being too extreme then you know things are bad. One only has to look at the current situation in Libya, Afghanistan or Iraq to see how things will pan out if this Free Syrian Army and their cohorts somehow win out.

Contrary to popular belief, countries in the Middle East are not homogenous "Arab Muslim" and nor are the conflicts there black and white contests between "goodie freedom fighters" and "baddie dictators." Syrian society is very sophisticated and diverse with there being a plethora of different ethnic, social and religious groups. While nobody is saying the likes of Assad, Hussein or Ghaddafi are a great bunch of lads, it is clear they provided some sort of focal point for a semblance of normal government. What we saw when Ghaddafi was deposed was a scramble for power by sectional interests, many of whom were driven by Islamic fundamentalism or else religious and ethnic supremacy. Hence in Libya and Iraq we saw an explosion in sectarian and ethnic violence.

The so-called FSA are no different. They are up to their necks in violence, corruption, drugs, kidnapping, rape and everything else. Only last week we saw one of their most prominent members eviscerating the dead and engaging in cannibalism. They are a loose cohort of fundamentalist nutters and brigands. Like the heroin-producing Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, they've been hyped up in the media as disciplined freedom fighters. They are anything but. If these people take power in Syria you will not see a fairer society emerge, rather a step a few hundred years into the past.

Change must come organically in Syria, nothing positive will emerge from the Brits and French et al trying to shoe-horn these people into power.

charlemont

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

You couldn't make it up really. The EU has lifted the arms embargo. Todays "rebels" will be tomorrows terrorists and an excuse to keep the so called war on terror going. The fact that these fundi nutbags were funded and encouraged by the west will go down the memory hole. The west deliberately creates its own enemies and the biggest winner is the military industrial complex.

The US, the UK, France, Israel etc don't give a crap about freedom or the Syrian people. All their talk about freedom and democracy is bunkum to feed to the gullible.

I really hope there is a Hell for these people, Making profit off other peoples suffering and stirring hatred between mankind. It always seems to be the more secular Arab countries they wreck whereas Saudi Arabia which treats people like animals is loved and adored by the Western powers. Stink hypocrisy.

Jonny7

Suff wrote: »

The way I see it, the term 'moderate' is dropped the minute the opposition take arms.

Ghandi would have been labelled a terrorist and lasted about 5 seconds in Syria and we all know it.

The moment human beings are shot at by military snipers, dragged to military prisons where they are castrated, have their eyes gouged out, bleed to death, have no water nor food for daring to march or protest is the moment they are perfectly entitled to take up arms and fight.

It's a proxy war, it was never about democracy or the freedom of the Syrian people, it's about how to destroy a country and benefit from it.

Please tick scapegoat for domestic uprising

[ ] Zionists
[ ] Halluncinagenic drugs
[ ] Giant international Cold War plot to usurp minsunderstood benevolent leader and create unstable Islamic theocracy

FTA69

The moment human beings are shot at by government snipers, dragged to military prisons where they are castrated, have their eyes gouged out, bleed to death, have no water nor food for daring to march or protest is the moment they are perfectly entitled to take up arms and fight.

Not many are going to argue that Bassad is a decent ruler. What people will do, however, is argue against the fallacy that the "FSA" is somehow representative of the majority of Syrians and is merely trying to restore democracy. That's b*llocks of the highest degree. They are a disparate mess, prone to infighting and are up to their necks in crime and atrocities every bit as bad if not worse than Bassad's crowd were.

We were told that the "Northern Alliance" in Afghanistan were freedom fighters. They've now established themselves as warlords and are pumping out more opium than was ever produced before.

We were told the anti-Ghadaffi fighters were freedom fighters and after the collapse of the regime half of them were out lynching blacks in public and beating and raping women for not wearing a hijab.

On top of this we have Islamic fundamentalists and their twisted right-wing agenda in the midst of them all. People who will be directly funded and armed by the west if the US and its allies get its way.

Giant international Cold War plot to usurp minsunderstood benevolent leader and create unstable Islamic theocracy

You can phrase it facetiously all you want but there is no getting away from the fact that there is an imperialist agenda at play in the Middle-East. As evidenced by the fact that, you know, they've invaded two countries already as well as supporting their own brand of dictator in Saudi Arabia.

Jonny7

FTA69 wrote: »

Not many are going to argue that Bassad is a decent ruler. What people will do, however, is argue against the fallacy that the "FSA" is somehow representative of the majority of Syrians and is merely trying to restore democracy. That's b*llocks of the highest degree. They are a disparate mess, prone to infighting and are up to their necks in crime and atrocities every bit as bad if not worse than Bassad's crowd were.

Bassad?

The FSA were largely defected military and their main aim was to bring down Assad.

We were told that the "Northern Alliance" in Afghanistan were freedom fighters.

We were told the anti-Ghadaffi fighters were freedom fighters

Subjective generalisation.

People who will be directly funded and armed by the west if the US and its allies get its way.

Al Nusra is on the terrorist list, the US has no intention of arming them.

You can phrase it facetiously all you want but there is no getting away from the fact that there is an imperialist agenda at play in the Middle-East. As evidenced by the fact that, you know, they've invaded two countries already as well as supporting their own brand of dictator in Saudi Arabia.

Sorry but this is tinfoil hat stuff.

Seaneh

Jonny7 wrote: »

Al Nusra is on the terrorist list, the US has no intention of arming them.



.

Not directly, but they will sell weapons, at a massive discount to Turkey, Saudi and Qatar, who then arm Al Nusra, without even batting an eyelid.

Jonny7

Seaneh wrote: »

Not directly, but they will sell weapons, at a massive discount to Turkey, Saudi and Qatar, who then arm Al Nusra, without even batting an eyelid.

I am curious as to what weaponry this is

Al-Nusra are generally well funded and decently armed - and use mostly Russian equipment and arms, AK variants, RPG 7's, old anti-tank guns, as well as random weapons from well, anywhere.

The US has them black-listed and the UN has them sanctioned and black-listed

The rebels in Syria actually like these guys a lot, they say they are incredibly brave fighters, fought very well in Aleppo, are very experienced (many from fighting the yanks in Iraq) but are too extreme.

Suff

Jonny7 wrote: »

The FSA were largely defected military and their main aim was to bring down Assad.

Please ... do you still buy this? FSA is a militia group, containing fighters from all over the world, and contains syrians of course. This has been confirmed the foreign offices of many EU, African and Asian countries and the media have highlighted it as well, as for the defected military personnel they don't even make 10% of the FSA.

Neither the FSA nor the regime has the majority of support these days, the majority of syrians are desperately looking to end this nightmare.

The regime has fallen from day one of the events, and they (the regime) know this, what they're trying to do is salvage something to secure themselves in the new Syria in some form or the other. My theory, we'll have a similar multi-party government to the one currently in Lebanon, where Assad will politically lead his party ... we'll see in 2014.

Consider this ... Lavrof has taken the role of Syria's foreign minster, speaking on behalf of the regime, and the 'frankenstein' opposition speaks on the behalf of Qatar, Saudi and Turkey who speaks on the behalf of America and its allies.
yet you claim this to be domestic issue!

The current situation between the opposition and the regime can be best described in that they're fighting on what colour to paint the wall, when there's no wall left to paint!

Jonny7

In regards to my comment on the FSA, just to point out I used the word "were". The FSA in July/August 2011 is quite different from the umbrella group now.

The "frankenstein" opposition has not had 50 years to solidify it's base, organise it's structure - that's because all opposition was banned or persecuted.


Where did those men who cracked those children's skulls open and slit their throats in Houla come from?

So many students who took part in the initial protests never came back, their families have no idea what has happened to them, where are they?

Syria exploded, it was always coming and it was domestic. Saudi, Qatar, The Russians, Hezbollah and so on came later.

My heart goes out to every Syrian family affected by this nightmare, but this is a debate and as such some are trying to apportion too much blame away from the Al-Assad dynasty. The buck still stops with him and I strongly believe if he is killed, exiled or forced out, this conflict can stop, yet if he lives, it will most definitely continue.

Suff

Al Mayadeen News channel had published an interesting analysis to the recent Assad interview.
Find below rough translation...

Bashar al-Assad directed few messages; to the Syrian inside first, and to the Arab neighbours, through the interview, which was aired exclusively by TV "Al-Manar" of the Lebanese Hezbollah party:

* First message: inform Israel that his country has received the first batch of missiles S-300 advanced anti-aircraft missiles, and to remind the Arabs that they (Israel) are still the enemy.

* The second message: to emphasize that he is going to the Geneva Conference as an attendee only, and not to apply any decisions issued, because any decisions will be put to a public referendum, of which we all know the results expected to be like all previous referendums.

* The third message: He appeared confident, a President who leads his country, and controls the Constitution, and refuses to divide Syria, countering all previous claims of him resorting to the Syrian coast to establish an alawaite state, and he is fighting, according to him in order to preserve the unity of Syria.

Moving into details we can say that the confidence of the Syrian president is clear, through the ridicule of Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister (naming him as an expert on American policies in the region), and stating that he'll run for the presidential elections in 2014.

All this is can be contributed to several things, most notably the continuous and significant advances made by the Syrian Army on several fronts in a short period, and the addition of the S300 Russian missiles to further advance the Syrian arm power to a point it can to force a no fly zone over Israeli air space, and reduce the chances of another Israeli air strike, due to the range of the S300 missiles that can reach up to and over hundred miles. In addition the reassuring and unlimited support of the Russian political and military, as opposed to the reluctance of the American/ West in a direct military intervention.

On the other hand he did not give convincing answers on a number of embarrassing questions posed by the Al-Manar correspondent, which is unlike him. Such questions are why haven't they opened the Golan front in the past forty years, and why didn't they respond to three Israeli raids, why accept the help the Lebanese Hezbollah while the Syrian army, which its numbers are over 400 thousand troops?.

President al-Assad said that the response to Israel would be strategically, and that the decision of the resistance (against Israel) is a popular decision in the arab world, but at the same time stressed that he would respond to the Israeli strike with similar blow, without giving any further details.

This interview in its entirety can be seen as an announcement to the death of the 2nd Geneva Conference before it takes place.

The Syrian president blow all the previous statements made by the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, which he made to the Al Mayadeen station the night before, in which Al Moallem said that Syria will go to Geneva conference without any conditions, but Assad later imposed more than five conditions, which are impossible for the opposition or states that support them to accept them together, or individually; such as the waiver of his powers as head of state of any transitional government, such as waiver of security, defense and the leadership of the armed forces, and his mockery of the opposition, of which he said that after the conference they would return to their 5 hotels star, unlike the Syrian representatives who will return to their homes in Syria.
He also stated that when Syria negotiates, it'll do so with the original, not the photocopy, ie; with the countries supporting the opposition, and not the opposition.

And finally talking about his intention to run for the upcoming presidential elections, stating that if it felt that the people want him, then certainly he will. Noting past experiences which will involve few hundred thousand of demonstrators urging him to run for the position.

After two years of the uprising, the Syrian president remains calm and holds firm to his political position, they did not change at all, as if Syria is an oasis of stability and security not witnessing a fierce war that so far has claimed the lives of more than a hundred thousand people from both sides.

We though at the beginning of the crisis that the war in Syria will last longer, possibly with the Algerian model being the closest in the characterization of it, and we stated that the days of President Assad are not numbered, and after this interview and the statements contained in we do not exaggerate when we say that the killings will continue, and that the war will be extended to neighboring countries; Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and Israel, all of which constitute the fulcrum axis America's allies in the Middle East.

The 'clear' declaration on receiving the advanced Russian missiles to Syria had terrified Israel, and it can be read as a "declaration of war", which has been confirmed by the Israeli defence minister Moshe Yaalon it stating that Israel will not allow Syria to have such missiles.

The question that arises strongly whether actually they (Israel) are able to respond and withstand the consequences; of 200 thousand rockets falling on it, and to engage in direct confrontation with Russia, the superpower that bared its teeth defending Syria, refusing to be bullied by Israel and its rude demands not to supply Syria with missiles that would paralyze the effectiveness of Israel's air superiority in the region?

The answer to these questions will determine the features of the next phase in the region politically and militarily, as it will determine the nature of the response (Great Western powers and Arab allies) to the unprecedented Russian challenge.

It is clear that Assad is preparing and is ready militarily, and leading a counter-attack in the media, perhaps he had regained space, or part of it, as he begins to regain some of the ground he had lost, especially in the city Qsair.

The real war did not start on Syria, and maybe we'll see the first signs in the coming days or weeks.

Jonny7

The missiles haven't arrived, in fact they aren't scheduled to arrive until next year. The Syrians crews will then need 6 months training to operate the various radar and delivery vehicles.

FTA69

Jonny7 wrote: »

Bassad?

Arab names don't translate specifically, hence why "Ghaddaffi" etc has a million and one spellings.

Subjective generalisation.

Are you suggesting that the anti-Ghaddaffi forces and the Northern Alliance weren't portrayed positively in the media during those conflicts?

Sorry but this is tinfoil hat stuff.

The US et al have invaded two countries in the Middle East, support the Saudi royals and Israel and are now seeking to arm Syrian rebels and you're telling me they have no selfish interests in the region? That sounds like the tinfoil hat stuff to me.

Jonny7

Using the phrase "we were told"' when referring to thousands of media outlets is a subjective generalisation.

I never suggested the US has purely altruistic motives. That would be pretty ridiculous now wouldn't it.

Suggesting the US (not to mention EU, UN, and Arab league) support for the rebels in Syria is part of some imperialist agenda tied with Iraq and Afghanistan is silly tinfoil hat stuff...

it's obvious this is a giant plot to replace Western friendly/tolerant dictators with democratically elected guises of the Muslim brotherhood .. right on Israel's doorstep.

Jimmy Garlic

Jonny7 wrote: »

Using the phrase "we were told"' when referring to thousands of media outlets is a subjective generalisation.

I never suggested the US has purely altruistic motives. That would be pretty ridiculous now wouldn't it.

Suggesting the US (not to mention EU, UN, and Arab league) support for the rebels in Syria is part of some imperialist agenda tied with Iraq and Afghanistan is silly tinfoil hat stuff...

it's obvious this is a giant plot to replace Western friendly/tolerant dictators with democratically elected guises of the Muslim brotherhood .. right on Israel's doorstep.

Israel itself supported the creation of Hamas via the Muslim Brotherhood to destabalise the PLO, have an excuse for its disproportionate military actions, and avoid a peace settlement with the Palestinians.

A destabilised Syria controlled by offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood suits Israel down to the ground.