Finally! The truth is coming out about Syria

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Jonny7

A destabilised Syria does not suit Israel, in fact they'd rather chemical weapons and other weaponry in the control of Assad's government, than fall into what they see as the wrong hands, e.g. Hezbollah (whom could easily use the chaos of the conflict to strike at Israel)

Which is why the Israeli's have struck three times this year inside Syria, purportedly hitting arms on their way to Lebanon. They also struck what they say what a chemical weapons research centre.

Seaneh

Jonny7 wrote: »

A destabilised Syria does not suit Israel, in fact they'd rather chemical weapons and other weaponry in the control of Assad's government, than fall into what they see as the wrong hands, e.g. Hezbollah (whom could easily use the chaos of the conflict to strike at Israel)

Which is why the Israeli's have struck three times this year inside Syria, purportedly hitting arms on their way to Lebanon. They also struck what they say what a chemical weapons research centre.

How would arms in the control of Al-Assad end up with Hezbollah if Al-Assad fell?
If anything, if Al-Assad falls, Hezbollah are far more likely to be the target for chemical weapons than the recipient of them, seeing as Al-Assad's government has supported Hezbollah since their inception.

BTW, Hezbollah have never used or sought chemical weapons, Amos Gilad said as much last month.

"Hezbollah does not have chemical weaponry. We have ways of knowing. They are not keen to take weaponry like this, preferring systems that can cover all of the country (Israel),"

So really, your hypothesis is nonsense.


They struck weapons reportedly on their way from Iran to Hezbollah, but they were not Chemical weapons, they were conventional mortars and medium distance rockets and anti-aircraft weapons.

Seaneh

Phoenix wrote: »

Is it true regarding the conflict in Syria is yet another war by proxy by the so called "superpowers" in order to control its gas resources?
I am not quite informed about this region as I would like,but it is quite disconcerting and saddening to see the west backing Jihadist movements such as the ones caught with the Sarin gas agent in Turkey and all in the name of so called freedom

Syria doesn't have it's own gas, but it is an important channel for future pipelines from central asia to the west.

Jonny7

Israel doesn't function like most other countries, they most certainly have a siege mentality.

Whilst they can count on many leaders not being stupid enough to launch a chemical weapon attack, they cannot count on these weapons more readily finding their way into the hands of groups or individuals who would have no problem using them in the current chaos.

They use/abuse their own regional position of strength in order to eliminate any possible threats to their security, such as striking the alleged nuclear facility in Syria in 2007.

The more recent strikes were on conventional weapon movements, however the Israeli's equally do not want Hezbollah helping itself to some of Syria's more powerful weaponry.

Suff

Seaneh wrote: »

Syria doesn't have it's own gas, but it is an important channel for future pipelines from central asia to the west.

New gas and oil reservoirs have been discovered in 2010.


According to Syrian Oil Ministry, the gas field was discovered by the Syrian Oil Company in Qara city, some 100 kilometers far from the capital Damascus, at a depth of 3,113 meters with a production capacity of 400,000 cubic meters per day.

source:
in addition

Almayadeen Lebanese NewsChannel has released the following:

Dr. Imad Fawzi Shuaibi, head of the Center for strategic studies and data in Damascus,reveals a discovered 14 oil fields in Syrian territorial waters, under blackout on the results of the survey conducted by a Norwegian company.

And in an episode of the program "Dialogue Time" Shuaibi said "A survey of the Syrian coast area of approximately 5,000 square kilometers done by a Norwegian company called "Ancis" discovered 14 oil fields."

Shuaibi revealed that among the 14 fields "There are four fields of the area from the Lebanese border to the Banias, Syria area includes oil production equivalent to the production of the State of Kuwait's oil, and a total beyond what is found in Lebanon, Cyprus and Israel together."

Shuaibi considered that this oil reserves is a "curse", following "The question is whether it is permissible for a single state to have all this?".

Words Shuaibi raises questions about the role of oil reserves and gas located in Syria in the crisis in the country, where it was discovered wells gas in the rural Homs and Damascus reserves a great addition to what is rumored war gas pipeline and Syria's strategic extend these lines.

A video in source

yara

Phoenix wrote: »

Is it true regarding the conflict in Syria is yet another war by proxy by the so called "superpowers" in order to control its gas resources?
I am not quite informed about this region as I would like,but it is quite disconcerting and saddening to see the west backing Jihadist movements such as the ones caught with the Sarin gas agent in Turkey and all in the name of so called freedom

at this stage we can safely say it's never ever ever ever ever ever about democracy and freedom!!

Seaneh

Suff wrote: »

New gas and oil reservoirs have been discovered in 2010.

Are they extracting it yet? I honestly wasn't aware they were producing hydrocarbons, learn something new every day.

AlekSmart

Seaneh wrote: »

Are they extracting it yet? I honestly wasn't aware they were producing hydrocarbons, learn something new every day.

Kind of underlines the vacuous nature of much of what passes for "Humanitarian Concern" which the likes of the U.N. & Co tend to trot out when a convienent opportunity to pluck out a thorn arises.....


I often wonder if the loss of ongoing revenues such as Communication Royalties would influence Major Powers in their action-plans ?

http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19327:why-the-west-wants-gaddafi-out&catid=39:opinion&Itemid=132

The tyrant Gadaffi reckoned that a once-off cost of US$400 Million was preferable to an annual,and perpetual,one of US$500 Million....The cheek of the man :eek:

I've little doubt that had Gadaffi been Irish,he would have been induced to put away that oul self-regard for his country and replace it with ..pragmatism...a lá our own Natural Gas scenario ?

Thankfully,the U.N./NATO alliance rescued the Libyan people from their plight,and in the process managed to secure their own "incidental" business arrangements.....Good Stuff all round

However,I'm sure there are TOTALLY different elements at play in Syria .......:)

Jonny7

I can see it all now

"Sir the Syrians have discovered some potential gas fields off their coast.."

"Prepare 'operation Arab spring'"

"but sir they are fairly small and we get 90% of our gas from Canada, much cheaper"

"just do it! and make sure the Al Qaeda protest brigades are ready to strike"

Suff

Jonny7 wrote: »

I can see it all now

"Sir the Syrians have discovered some potential gas fields off their coast.."

"Prepare 'operation Arab spring'"

"but sir they are fairly small and we get 90% of our gas from Canada, much cheaper"

"just do it! and make sure the Al Qaeda protest brigades are ready to strike"

I know you're making fun but ... watch this video where Senior US Army General Wesley Clark talks about plans made destabilise the middle east in 2007.

cyberhog

It seems Australia's Foreign Minister would gladly kiss Assad's ass if it brought an end to the fighting.

BOB Carr says President Bashar al-Assad should be afforded any luxury if it means bringing an end to Syria's civil war.

“If you can bring the two parties to a ceasefire and to talks about a peaceful political transition, leave Assad there,” the Foreign Minister told the Sky News Agenda program.

“If it were to end the suffering of these millions of Syrians I would stick him in a gilded palace with peacocks strutting on the lawn, to see ... the mass atrocities came to an end.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/accept-assad-in-syria-peace-process-carr/story-fn59nm2j-1226655353375

So one minute, Assad is a "brutal dictator" who has no future in Syria. The next, he should be allowed stay and showered with extravagant gifts?

Western powers clearly have no idea what the hell they are doing. It would be best if the Western clowns just stay the hell out of it and let the Syrian Army get on with its job.

Suff

A recent publication by World Tribune states that Assad's popularity is increasing, with %70 of Syrians supporting him. This came after collecting research data compiled by Western-sponsored activists and organizations that are working inside Syria.

Full Story link

Let's see if mainstream media are going to cover this report!

Jonny7

Interesting site.. no sources given, the organisations not mentioned, and NATO does polls?

Looking into the site further, clicking on "France" or "Italy" does not bring up respective news, rather a series of editorials and blogs with a fairly similar vein.

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

Interesting site.. no sources given, the organisations not mentioned, and NATO does polls?

Looking into the site further, clicking on "France" or "Italy" does not bring up respective news, rather a series of editorials and blogs with a fairly similar vein.

So most likely a conspiracy of some sort ?

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

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.

A former Russian general says it would only take a month to train the crews.

It will take up to a month to train Syrian crews to operate the S-300, Kornukov told Interfax-AVN. “Certainly, our specialists will have to train Syrian colleagues if they get these systems. Everything here will depend on the diligence of those to be trained. It will, however, take between two weeks and a month,” Kornukov said.

Asked how long it would take to deploy the S-300 once in Syria, Kornukov said that “everything depends on the site where these systems are to be positioned”. “It will take some time to reach the site, although to deploy them proper will take no more than a couple of hours,” he said. It is, he noted, a conservative estimate to take account of the need for “additional adjustments after transit”. “Ordinarily, however, our systems can be deployed within five minutes,” Kornukov added.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/06/batteries-general-denounces.html

esteve

For anybody who likes dealing with facts and reality...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD0lf-TugxY

gurramok

Hezbollah have sectarianised this conflict now pitting Shia against Sunni and endangering the Lebanon by fighting with Assad in Syria. With Shia Iran in the fold too, the rebels are fighting overwhelming odds against 3 regional powers lined up in this conflict - the Syrian Army, Hezbollah and Iran.

By Hezbollahs reckless action of fighting for Assad, this is will draw in regional Sunni powers now. What started as a protest movement for democracy against a brutal dictator has now thanks to Assad and Hezbollah transformed it into a sectarian conflict.

Suff

gurramok wrote: »

Hezbollah have sectarianised this conflict now pitting Shia against Sunni and endangering the Lebanon by fighting with Assad in Syria. With Shia Iran in the fold too, the rebels are fighting overwhelming odds against 3 regional powers lined up in this conflict - the Syrian Army, Hezbollah and Iran.

By Hezbollahs reckless action of fighting for Assad, this is will draw in regional Sunni powers now. What started as a protest movement for democracy against a brutal dictator has now thanks to Assad and Hezbollah transformed it into a sectarian conflict.

It was never domestic, never about democracy and Assad was not a 'brutal' dictator. The rebels have added the sectarian element from the start. The sunni powers as you've put it have been involved from day one, arming, funding, facilitating and supporting the rebels.

AlekSmart

Suff wrote: »

It was never domestic, never about democracy and Assad was not a 'brutal' dictator. The rebels have added the sectarian element from the start. The sunni powers as you've put it have been involved from day one, arming, funding, facilitating and supporting the rebels.

I wonder Suff,if you would elaborate on your different take on al Assad,the accepted wisdom on Boards and generally in Western circles is that all rulers such as al Assad,Gadaffi,Mubarak,Hussein et al,simply have to be brutal,in order to allow us civilized westerners to ride in and rescue the natives.

You however appear to be at odds with this,and that interests me.

Could you perhaps outline examples of where Bashir al Assad does not meet the requirements of being termed "Brutal" ?

Jimmy Garlic

gurramok wrote: »

Hezbollah have sectarianised this conflict now pitting Shia against Sunni and endangering the Lebanon by fighting with Assad in Syria. With Shia Iran in the fold too, the rebels are fighting overwhelming odds against 3 regional powers lined up in this conflict - the Syrian Army, Hezbollah and Iran.

By Hezbollahs reckless action of fighting for Assad, this is will draw in regional Sunni powers now. What started as a protest movement for democracy against a brutal dictator has now thanks to Assad and Hezbollah transformed it into a sectarian conflict.

Hezbollah for all their faults are not fundi nutjobs and don't want them on their doorstep. Would you? For all of Assads faults he is not sectarian, sunnis make up the majority of the Syrian Army. What you fail to mention is the gulf states role in all of this.. Just like the US, UK, Israel etc they have zero interest in democracy and are backing "rebels" who are most definitely sectarian in nature.

Seaneh

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Hezbollah for all their faults are not fundi nutjobs and don't want them on their doorstep.

Exactly, Hezbollah, despite their name, are a secular, democratic organisation. In their short time in the coalition government in Lebanon they have done more to push secular policies and the "one man one vote" agenda than any party in the last 20 or 30 years. It's funny as well becuase Al-Assad was generally referred to as being too secularist by his detractors in the Arab Peninsula.

They (the leaders of Yemen, Qatar, Saudi, etc) didn't give a crap that he is a dictator, they don't give a crap about democracy or "the wishes of the Syrian people" any more than they give a crap about the people in their own countries. Their problem with him is that he's ethnically Shia and his government didn't implement fundamentalist Islamist laws in Syria and place Imam's in positions of power.
He simply isn't a good enough Muslim for them, he's policies of giving more freedoms to Women and Christians and westernising Syria is what got the foreign Jihadists and their puppeteers in the Arab Penisula up in arms.

Jonny7

Seaneh wrote: »

He simply isn't a good enough Muslim for them, he's policies of giving more freedoms to Women and Christians and westernising Syria is what got the foreign Jihadists and their puppeteers in the Arab Penisula up in arms.

This is false. The Syrian uprising has invariably sparked sectarianism, with many joining the fight in the last 12 months because they see it as an oppression of Sunni's, they see Assad as firmly aligned with a shi'ite Iran, and now with Hezbollah basically acting as mercenaries.

It's almost becoming a side-show and microcosm of long held tensions in the region.

It benefits Assad because it validates his earlier propaganda that opposition were "terrorists", strengthens his position, and the nastier the fighting, the more likely people will be to accept any leadership and stability out of the chaos.

It benefits the Islamists because it solidifies a cause and draws more attention and numbers to that cause - and of course many seek to create some sort of Islamic state out of the ashes - I mean much of the sectarianism in Iraq in 2006/2007 was actually caused by foreign jihadists attacking both sides - in order to ferment chaos - with both the aim of driving out the US and establishing their version of an Islamic state

Suff

AlekSmart wrote: »

I wonder Suff,if you would elaborate on your different take on al Assad.....

Sure, Assad is a dictator in the sense that ba'ath party would not allow Syria to be a diverse, multi-party political state, and have banned any activities that would facilitate the creation of such environment. From 2001 and until 2006 we had a political reform that was named 'Damascus Spring' were political and social parties were given the green light to work (I've been part in this). Sadly, this did not last ... in 2008 the Ba'ath party forced a number of laws in order to limit the new parties from resuming their activities. We were told by people very close to Assad that "He wanted to change Syria, but the old guards won't allow him to do so, they fear they'd lose control over the country".

We have known his during his Father's rule to be a quiet, humble, and decent young man. He drove an old Beatle without any entourage or security.

As for the term 'brutal' ... before the current events, he did not kill, bomb, destroy, attack, slaughter any Syrian. People used to boast about how safe and peaceful it is to live in Syria. and this is a fact, no one can deny. This has changed since the 'revolution' started.

Now, when faced with a revolution the regime will do whatever needs to be done to eliminate threats to its existence. hence, killing, bombing, etc...

So is he responsible for the deaths, killings and bombing of Syrian cities, towns and villages? YES of course he is. Is he accountable for these actions, YES but only the Syrian people shall be the ones to judge.

Hope this explains my views on the syrian dictator.

AlekSmart

Suff wrote: »

Sure, Assad is a dictator in the sense that ba'ath party would not allow Syria to be a diverse, multi-party political state, and have banned any activities that would facilitate the creation of such environment. From 2001 and until 2006 we had a political reform that was named 'Damascus Spring' were political and social parties were given the green light to work (I've been part in this). Sadly, this did not last ... in 2008 the Ba'ath party forced a number of laws in order to limit the new parties from resuming their activities. We were told by people very close to Assad that "He wanted to change Syria, but the old guards won't allow him to do so, they fear they'd lose control over the country".

We have known his during his Father's rule to be a quiet, humble, and decent young man. He drove an old Beatle without any entourage or security.

As for the term 'brutal' ... before the current events, he did not kill, bomb, destroy, attack, slaughter any Syrian. People used to boast about how safe and peaceful it is to live in Syria. and this is a fact, no one can deny. This has changed since the 'revolution' started.

Now, when faced with a revolution the regime will do whatever needs to be done to eliminate threats to its existence. hence, killing, bombing, etc...

So is he responsible for the deaths, killings and bombing of Syrian cities, towns and villages? YES of course he is. Is he accountable for these actions, YES but only the Syrian people shall be the ones to judge.

Hope this explains my views on the syrian dictator.

Thank you Suff.

It is interesting to read some balancing material to the Despotic Dictator description which has,in recent times,become de rigeur in Western Media when stirring up support for some other adventure to deliver Democracy to the citizens of wherever....

It's interesting to note your reference of the "Old Guard" and the "Regime",as to date,we know very little of the Syrian machinery of governance.

Essentially,we tend to be presented with a view of Al Assad sitting alone on a throne micro-managing his armed forces responses...which I very much doubt is the case.

cyberhog

The rebels have lost control of Qusayr.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/05/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE9530VE20130605

The victory will be a big lift for the Syrian Army, and a demoralising blow for the opposition.


Also the talk of thousands of endangered "civilians" in Qusayr was nonsense. According to the BBC's Lyse Doucet the town was practically empty:

Saw very few civilians #Qusayr - a few farmers on tractors , one family loading a pickup. #Syria

https://twitter.com/bbclysedoucet/statuses/342309593105432576

So congratulations are in order to the Syrian Army on a job well done. Now onto Aleppo!

cyberhog

cyberhog wrote: »

So congratulations are in order to the Syrian Army on a job well done. Now onto Aleppo!

Celebrating a dictators army having a victory really is nuts. Can you really not see?

Jonny7

Foreign boots on the ground.. not one hint of condemnation

Children are being forced to watch their parents being tortured, it's a sick conflict. Stop cheerleadering, it's grotesque.

FTA69

Deleted User wrote: »

Celebrating a dictators army having a victory really is nuts. Can you really not see?

It's better than the alternative anyway. Syria would be a lot worse if these whackjobs took over and set about persecuting everyone and anyone who doesn't fit in with their Sunni supremacist nonsense.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote: »

It's better than the alternative anyway. Syria would be a lot worse if these whackjobs took over and set about persecuting everyone and anyone who doesn't fit in with their Sunni supremacist nonsense.

You have no way of knowing who would be worse in power. It originally started with protests for democracy that Assad shot up. If the Islamists hadn`t of hijacked the fighting then you could argue that an elected government would be better as it would be accountable.

Assad can do what he likes because he doesn`t have to answer to anyone.

FTA69

Well we can look to similar movements in Libya for our answer of what would happen. As soon as Ghadaffi was deposed we had some of the so-called "freedom fighters" there out lynching black Africans and dragging them behind trucks as well as women being beaten and raped for not conforming to fundamentalist Islamic dress codes. We have had one of the most prominent Syrian rebels eviscerating the dead on camera and threatening the extermination of the Alawite minority. When you look at some of the characters that are heading up the FSA then it doesn't take a genius to work out their agenda, or picture what will happen in the event of them seizing power.

Any time the west has sought to intervene in toppling some Middle-Eastern dictator either directly or indirectly the results have been disastrous.

Brown Bomber

cyberhog wrote: »

And since both of those undemocratic states have received US help arming the rebels we can add President Obama to the list of people meddling in Syria for selfish reasons.

A lesser known Stratfor email exchange published by Wikileaks tells us of the actual US agenda in Syria from as early as 2011.

Date 2011-12-13 21:19:20
From burton@stratfor.com
To anya.alfano@stratfor.com
korena.zucha@stratfor.com
Others MessageId: <4EE7B348.80802@stratfor.com>
InReplyTo: FD85A5E4-8DA7-48D6-9AF8-8538F85D482E@graytm.com
Text
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walid_Phares
http://myrick.house.gov/
** Source and Dr. Walid Phares are getting air cover from Congresswoman Myrick to engage Syrian opposition in Turkey (non-MB and non-Qatari) on a fact finding mission for Congress.
** The true mission is how they can help in regime change.
** Source intends to offer his services to help protect the opposition members, like he had underway in Libya.
** Source says Booze, Hamilton is also working w/the Agency on a similar request.

---

Original Message

---

Subject: Got a moment? Syria 757 478 7383
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:59:26 -0500
From: JFS
To: burton@stratfor.com
JS Sent from mobile device

================================

To help decipher the above:

• The sender is Fred Burton, Stratfor's Vice President of intelligence.
• The "source" is Jamie Smith, "ex" CIA, ex Blackwater Director. He had been in Libya since the no-fly-zone working with Ireland's own hero jihadi Mahdi alhariti.
• Walid Phares is a former advisor to the brutal Christian militias/Israeli proxies in Southern Lebanon. He is right-wing kook regularly seen on FOX etc pushing hatred against Muslims.
• Sue Myrick is a Zionist, Republican Congresswoman.
• Booz Hamilton are CIA contractors.

FTA69

Away out of it with that stuff. It's obvious there is no agenda here and western support for the FSA is done in the interests of altruism and democracy.

Jonny7

FTA69 wrote: »

Well we can look to similar movements in Libya for our answer of what would happen. As soon as Ghadaffi was deposed we had some of the so-called "freedom fighters" there out lynching black Africans and dragging them behind trucks as well as women being beaten and raped for not conforming to fundamentalist Islamic dress codes. We have had one of the most prominent Syrian rebels eviscerating the dead on camera and threatening the extermination of the Alawite minority. When you look at some of the characters that are heading up the FSA then it doesn't take a genius to work out their agenda, or picture what will happen in the event of them seizing power.

Any time the west has sought to intervene in toppling some Middle-Eastern dictator either directly or indirectly the results have been disastrous.

Libya had relatively peaceful elections and moderates were elected.

Gadaffi employed sub-Saharan mercenaries - atrocities were commited on both sides, yet you chose to only highlight one side.

Hezbollah is clearly in Syria to support Assad, an illegitimate unelected leader - yet the "West" is selected for criticism supporting an election in Libya, the elections in Egypt and so on.

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

Libya had relatively peaceful elections and moderates were elected.

Gadaffi employed sub-Saharan mercenaries - atrocities were commited on both sides, yet you chose to only highlight one side.

Hezbollah is clearly in Syria to support Assad, an illegitimate unelected leader - yet the "West" is selected for criticism supporting an election in Libya, the elections in Egypt and so on.

Oddly enough,the scale of atrocities attributed to Gadaffi's forces in the lead up to,and during,the "popular revolution" was never shown to merit the coverage it was given.

Indeed,it is argueable that the cleansing process which went on in the immediate aftermath was on a scale far wider than the Libyan Government Forces were being then accused of.

The highlighting of such events is largely due to the amount of them there were/are to highlight.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Libya had relatively peaceful elections and moderates were elected.

Gadaffi employed sub-Saharan mercenaries - atrocities were commited on both sides, yet you chose to only highlight one side.

Hezbollah is clearly in Syria to support Assad, an illegitimate unelected leader - yet the "West" is selected for criticism supporting an election in Libya, the elections in Egypt and so on.

If Libya is your best example of a success story then you don't have much of an argument.

Hezbollah are fighting with the jihadi mercenaries in Syria because the US's proxy terrorists in the region Al Nusra have declared war on the whole Levant/ Al Sham to install their caliphate. This area includes Lebanon.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If Libya is your best example of a success story then you don't have much of an argument.

Hello again BB

After 40 years of dictatorship, billions stolen and 6 months of pretty brutal civil war, an election is a step forward for the Libyans.

Hezbollah are fighting with the jihadi mercenaries in Syria because the US's proxy terrorists in the region Al Nusra have declared war on the whole Levant/ Al Sham to install their caliphate. This area includes Lebanon.

Al Nusra are not US proxy terrorists - the US has outlawed them.

Hezbollah are in Syria to support Assad militarily, politically and help him gain control of crucial areas.

suicide_circus

Austria are pulling out of peacekeeping duties.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hello again BB

After 40 years of dictatorship, billions stolen and 6 months of pretty brutal civil war, an election is a step forward for the Libyans.

Yes, because as everyone knows "elections" are a pseudo-progressive magic wand that makes all the ethnic cleansing, torturing to death and illegal prisons go away.

Libya: Militia stranglehold corrosive for rule of law

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/libya-militia-stranglehold-corrosive-rule-law-2012-07-04

Jonny7 wrote: »

Al Nusra are not US proxy terrorists - the US has outlawed them. .

And just because they have "outlawed them" then this means that they aren't supporting them? Are you familiar at all with Iran-Contra?

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hezbollah are in Syria to support Assad militarily, politically and help him gain control of crucial areas.

I'm sorry but you seem to have missed the part where Al Qaeda have declared war against everybody that stands in their way of (re)establishing a Caliphate in what they refer to as al Sham - this includes Lebanon - what would you suggest they do? Arrange a conference call with al Zawahiri to talk it out?

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes, because as everyone knows "elections" are a pseudo-progressive magic wand that makes all the ethnic cleansing, torturing to death and illegal prisons go away.

It's an election, like the people of Saudi or Bahrain or Burma want.

This thread is already enough of a point-scoring exercise against whomever.

And just because they have "outlawed them" then this means that they aren't supporting them? Are you familiar at all with Iran-Contra?

You called Al Nusra - US proxy terrorists. Are you basing that information on something that happened almost 30 years ago or on actual evidence?

I'm sorry but you seem to have missed the part where Al Qaeda have declared war against everybody that stands in their way of (re)establishing a Caliphate in what they refer to as al Sham - this includes Lebanon - what would you suggest they do? Arrange a conference call with al Zawahiri to talk it out?

Didn't you claim that Al Qaeda were conjured up and controlled by the US?

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's an election, like the people of Saudi or Bahrain or Burma want.

And why would they or anyone else want an election were certain ideologies and people are banned from involvement?

Jonny7 wrote: »

You called Al Nusra - US proxy terrorists. Are you basing that information on something that happened almost 30 years ago or on actual evidence?

If you'd prefer a more recent example then consider the covert arming of Fatah with the aim of the violent overthrow of the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Hamas.

Point being Al Nusra/Al Qaeda and the US and it's regional attack dogs have the same short term goals for Syria. Without Al Nusra there is no effective fighting force to speak of in Syria. It is a matter of necessity for the continuation of the US-backed revolution that the jihadis have rifles in their hands and bullets in their rifles. This leaves Obama with a dilemma. How can he be seen to be fighting Al Qaeda on the one hand and allied with them on the other? Well he simply can't. That is where the Saudis, Qataris and so on come in. They put some distance between the US and Al Qaeda for the purpose of plausible deniability.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And why would they or anyone else want an election were certain ideologies and people are banned from involvement?

Perhaps they should have gone back to one where all opposition was banned indefinitely

Really cerebral stuff going on here

Point being Al Nusra/Al Qaeda and the US and it's regional attack dogs have the same short term goals for Syria.

Al Nusra are hostile toward the West, especially the US and Israel, they are aligned with Al Qaeda in Iraq, responsible for the deaths of god knows how many US servicemen

They only arrived in Syria last year and aren't a US proxy anymore than Hezbollah are.

Seaneh

Jonny7 wrote: »

]
Al Nusra are hostile toward the West,

Al Nusra = The Muslim Brotherhood = Al Qaeda = The Taliban = The Mujahideen.

They are all funded by the same people and inspired by the same imams and have never had any hesitation in taking money from western governments in one hand and shooting at the same western governments with the same gun in the other hand.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Perhaps they should have gone back to one where all opposition was banned indefinitely

Really cerebral stuff going on here

You didn't answer the question, which was:

And why would they or anyone else want an election were certain ideologies and people are banned from involvement?

Jonny7 wrote: »

Al Nusra are hostile toward the West, especially the US and Israel, they are aligned with Al Qaeda in Iraq, responsible for the deaths of god knows how many US servicemen

They only arrived in Syria last year and aren't a US proxy anymore than Hezbollah are.

The LIFG are "hostile toward the West, especially the US and Israel, they are aligned with Al Qaeda...etc"

Obama couldn't jump into bed quick enough with them even though Zawahiri formally announced their alliance with Al Qaeda in 2007. The US and Britain knew all about it's leader Belhaj because he had been a victim (along with his pregnant wife) of CIA extraordinary rendition. Ultimately he was passed over as a gift by the British to Gadaffi to torture.

So tell me, what is the difference between the LIFG and Al Nusra? And are we to believe that Obama has suddenly developed a moral backbone?

Jonny7

Seaneh wrote: »

They are all funded by the same people and inspired by the same imams and have never had any hesitation in taking money from western governments in one hand and shooting at the same western governments with the same gun in the other hand.

right, funded by whom? which Imams inspired Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1920's?

Seaneh

Funded by rich Yemeni, Saudi, Qatari, etc armed by the same and subsidised by the west through indirect sales and yeah, imams spouting the same sunni supremacist crap since the 1920s have been the inspiration for the muslim brotherhood and their little offshoots for about a century now.

Hassan Al-banna was just a slightly less crazy Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif or Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You didn't answer the question, which was:

And why would they or anyone else want an election were certain ideologies and people are banned from involvement?

Parties are banned from elections all over the world, fascist parties, communist parties.

The Libyans had their election. The country is a thousand times better off right now in it's current state than Syria is.

Why does this piss certain people off so much..

We're back to the cheerleading again, picking sides.

So tell me, what is the difference between the LIFG and Al Nusra? And are we to believe that Obama has suddenly developed a moral backbone?

I don't know you tell me, what is the nefarious US plan in Syria? I'd really like to know..

If its anything like the US flying airliners into their own buildings dude I don't wanna know

Jonny7

Seaneh wrote: »

Funded by rich Yemeni, Saudi, Qatari, etc armed by the same and subsidised by the west through indirect sales and yeah, imams spouting the same sunni supremacist crap since the 1920s have been the inspiration for the muslim brotherhood and their little offshoots for about a century now.

Hassan Al-banna was just a slightly less crazy Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif or Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The Saudi's funded the Muslim Brotherhood? no they didn't. They barely let them exist down there. The Mujahideen have been around for centuries.

Al Zawahiri is a psychopath and has 25 million on his head, next we'll be hearing how his group is a US proxy.. oh wait

HansHolzel

The rebels are going to lose, like in Algeria.

Seaneh

Jonny7 wrote: »

The Saudi's funded the Muslim Brotherhood? no they didn't. They barely let them exist down there. The Mujahideen have been around for centuries.

Al Zawahiri is a psychopath and has 25 million on his head, next we'll be hearing how his group is a US proxy.. oh wait

So saudi's aren't and haven't been funding muslim brotherhood offshoots like say, er, Hamas? Wow, I must have been reading about the other Palestinian paramilitary organisation come political party who control the gaza strip who are basically the Gaza faction of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Oh and who else funded Hamas, ah yeah, our lovely friends Israel and the US.

You couldn't make this stuff up.