Finally! The truth is coming out about Syria

Jonny7

Seaneh wrote: »

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.

The Wahhabists in house of Saud do not get on with the Muslim brotherhood.

Israel and the US funded Hamas? what year or period and how?

credible sources please

Seaneh

Jonny7 wrote: »

The Wahhabists in house of Saud do not get on with the Muslim brotherhood.

Israel and the US funded Hamas? what year or period and how?

credible sources please

The Wahhabists in the house of Saud have been funnelling money into Gaza for a decade.

And as for Israel and the US funding Hamas, how about retired Israeli official Avner Cohen? Who in 2009 WSJ article describes how Israel basically created the monster that they now keep caged in Gaza.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html

Jonny7

Seaneh wrote: »

The Wahhabists in the house of Saud have been funnelling money into Gaza for a decade.

Doesn't make em any friendlier with the Muslim brotherhood who some of them blame for, well, everything that's wrong with the world.

I'm not particularly fond of either, but this thread is stretching pretty far trying to tie Al Nusra as a US proxy.

And as for Israel and the US funding Hamas, how about retired Israeli official Avner Cohen? Who in 2009 WSJ article describes how Israel basically created the monster that they now keep caged in Gaza.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html

Fair enough, but where does it mention US and Israeli funding?

It claims the Israeli's tolerated an earlier "peaceful" version of Hamas, complete with clinics, schools, a university and a charity. Obviously also as a rival to the PLO. Makes sense really. It all went south as soon that movement became Hamas and got violent toward Israel.

Seaneh

They "encouraged" them as an alternative to Fatah and the PLO.

If they are encouraging them as an alternative to organisations with paramilitaries, does it not make sense that they were also encouraging them to arm? There are also numerous articles on the web from ex israeli officials who admit they funded Hamas in the 80's.

Not giving them guns directly doesn't mean they didn't arm them.

Mossad helped radicalise Hamas.

Jonny7

And it made clear sense for Israel to support Yassin

from the article
However, in Gaza, says Mr. Segev, "our main enemy was Fatah," and the cleric "was still 100% peaceful" towards Israel. Former officials say Israel was also at the time wary of being viewed as an enemy of Islam.

So, in context, there is nothing bizarre about any of that.

It doesn't mean that Israel presently supports Hamas in their current incarnation. Hamas are a lot more appetizing than Al Nusra - I don't see or read any evidence that the EU and US clambering over each other to arm them, quite the opposite. Virtually every government in the world is heavily critical of Assad's action over the last 2 years and rightfully so, that doesn't mean, that by some tenuous link the world is backing Al Qaeda - although some are trying hard to portray it as such.

People will see what they want to see in this conflict, and find a way to blame their favorite culprits. The facts speak for themselves. 10s of thousands of Syrians took to the streets and were gunned down long before Al Nusra or the FSA.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

It claims the Israeli's tolerated an earlier "peaceful" version of Hamas, complete with clinics, schools, a university and a charity. Obviously also as a rival to the PLO. Makes sense really.

Any chance of you making up your mind?

Does it "make sense" to support the enemy of your enemy or not?

Jonny7

The article Seaneh posted offers a good explanation of why the Israeli's supported the earlier incarnation of Hamas.

Makes political sense to support or tolerate a more peaceful side and at worst they were a possible counter to the PLO - whom were a big thorn in the Israeli side at the time.

Hmmm I sense this line of questioning is not to do with the article though..

Maybe it's your turn to answer my question from before..

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

When someone insinuates 911 was an inside job.. implies Bin Laden wasn't killed on 2011 and indeed that many attacks/incidents against the US were false flags, it doesn't look very good when they ask someone to make up their mind on something.

Back on topic, we can suspect the US of supporting Al Nusra all we want, that doesn't make it true. As far as I can tell, since these groups emerged in Syria, the US/EU have been working on distancing from them.

This however contradicts the notion that 'my enemies enemy is my friend' - so it would imply that the US/EU do not have fully imperialist or underhand reasons for supporting the uprising against Assad - a notion that some just cannot accept, no matter how obvious it is.

Brown Bomber

Lets not get personal.

So to recap and correct me where I am wrong this is your position:

• Everyone would want an undemocratic election as took place in Libya
• It was rational for the Israelis to support Hamas.
• Precedents that happened 30 years ago are irrelevant.
• It was rational for Obama to support the Al Qaeda affiliate the LIFG in Libya
• There is no discernible difference between Al Nusra and the LIFG
• It is irrational and completely beyond the pale for Obama to support Al Nusra.

Jonny7

Partisan politics aside, I see the UN is launching the largest appeal in its history. There are 1.6 million refugees, 4.5 million internally displaced and a further 6.8 million needing assistance. Glad to see something being done for those affected by all this. Perhaps it will inject some much needed reality and urgency back into the whole process.

Eggy Baby!

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...

America has been imperialist since its very beginnings. A leopard never changes its spots.

What we have been seeing lately though is a particularly worrying trend of militarism in US society. America may not be an empire de jure but it is such de facto. The bad thing is that it's citizens don't even realise it.

cyberhog

Deleted User wrote: »

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

The EU is worried about the return of extremists from Syria.

There are fears in many EU nations that citizens who leave to fight with extremist groups, sometimes with links to al-Qaida, might return home radicalised, with new knowledge and training, and the intent to set off a terror attack.

De Kerchove said the problem of such foreign fighters was even bigger now than during the war in Afghanistan over the past decade.

"We never had the sort of travel of jihadists on that scale," he said in a video address.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/eu-seeks-measures-fighters-syria

I say it's better for the EU if the foreign fighters meet their demise in Syria rather than have them coming back to Europe to carry out terror attacks. So I am quite happy to see the Syrian Army winning and so too should anyone who lives in Europe.

WakeUp

HansHolzel wrote: »

The rebels are going to lose, like in Algeria.

The backers of the "rebels" are going to experience an exercise in painful realism at some stage in the future if they arent begining to already. It was obvious when this all started that the Russians had drawn a line in the sand and that Iran was all in aswell as we are seeing now with the open & declared involvement of Hizbollah. The US treated Russia with contempt right from the start. Stupid position to take. Unless someone takes out Assads airfields and destroys his mechanised assets the rebels just cant win, not with the forces now aligned against them. Watching how some of the rebels fight I nearly feel sorry for them they are so bad and disorganised bordering on incompetent. Assads forces on the other hand are competent and ruthless. The only faction out of the "rebel" units that are anyway proper soldiers and seem to know what they are doing are the al-nusra jihadi heads. I think Syria is going to trigger a regional sectarian sunni-shia war you can see it taking shape already and it could take a long time for that to play out. Either way it doesnt look good for the rebels or the region.

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

America has been imperialist since its very beginnings. A leopard never changes its spots.

Any powerful nation can be personified in the same way, it's a general rule rather that a specific trait. Imperialism is a word I would associate more with the UK, Netherlands, Spain, France, Portugal a few hundred years ago, but feel free to apply to modern day powers such as US, Russia and China.


If the US opposing Assad falls under your take on "imperialism", then logically if US took the position of Russia and started arming Assad - that wouldn't be imperialism?

If you consider both are imperialism, then Russia and Iran are fairly damn isolated on their stances.

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

The backers of the "rebels" are going to experience an exercise in painful realism at some stage in the future if they arent begining to already. It was obvious when this all started that the Russians had drawn a line in the sand and that Iran was all in aswell as we are seeing now with the open & declared involvement of Hizbollah. The US treated Russia with contempt right from the start. Stupid position to take. Unless someone takes out Assads airfields and destroys his mechanised assets the rebels just cant win, not with the forces now aligned against them. Watching how some of the rebels fight I nearly feel sorry for them they are so bad and disorganised bordering on incompetent. Assads forces on the other hand are competent and ruthless. The only faction out of the "rebel" units that are anyway proper soldiers and seem to know what they are doing are the al-nusra jihadi heads. I think Syria is going to trigger a regional sectarian sunni-shia war you can see it taking shape already and it could take a long time for that to play out. Either way it doesnt look good for the rebels or the region.

I just want to remind that when all this started, people were protesting in the streets against the leadership.

The armed conflict took a few months to develop, and yes I agree, the rebels are very disorganised and fighting against massive odds. Gadaffi had a much weaker grip on the military and I still feel his regime would have "won" eventually without foreign intervention.

The rebels are even more ****ed now that the foreign intervention is for Assad, yet there are so many foreign fighters flooding in, and those that border Syria aren't exactly sympathetic toward Assad. Ah, it's very uncertain.

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

I just want to remind that when all this started, people were protesting in the streets against the leadership.

The armed conflict took a few months to develop, and yes I agree, the rebels are very disorganised and fighting against massive odds. Gadaffi had a much weaker grip on the military and I still feel his regime would have "won" eventually without foreign intervention.

The rebels are even more ****ed now that the foreign intervention is for Assad, yet there are so many foreign fighters flooding in, and those that border Syria aren't exactly sympathetic toward Assad. Ah, it's very uncertain.

People were protesting on the streets that was the begining alright, suppose what I meant was after that when all out war began the various outside influences and powers became involved for their own reasons and still are. What you said about imperialism in your other comment with regard to Russia and Iran is a fair comment I think. The big powers of the world and powers within regions like the Persians since the dawn of time have competed for their own interests and benefits and probably always will. When Russia attempts to project her influence upon another nation like Syria to me that is a form of imperialism in the same way the US projects power. Back in the day imperialism was nations forcibly imposing their will on weaker nations these days its a bit more subtle through indirect political and economic ways among others though for me its still imperialism just in another form.

Sooner or later the bigger powers , if one of them decide upon a zero sum approach in a unipolar world which the US has done in Syria , will eventually have a conflict of interest. Its too dangerous in a nuclear age to carry on like that the US being the sole superpower have a responsibility for me not to act in such a way. The way the US dealt with Russia from the begining has just been wrong & arrogant and quite stupid they miscalculated their response and miscalculated other things too which makes me think what are they going to miscalculate next. Everything is so uncertain dont know where all the foreign fighters are coming from but they are pouring in. There are people in Russia who want to go and fight for Assad it isnt just Jihadis that want to go fight there. It is just so uncertain I dont think it can be controlled and its more likely to escalte than not.

yara

WakeUp wrote: »

.Sooner or later the bigger powers , if one of them decide upon a zero sum approach in a unipolar world which the US has done in Syria , will eventually have a conflict of interest. Its too dangerous in a nuclear age to carry on like that the US being the sole superpower have a responsibility for me not to act in such a way. The way the US dealt with Russia from the begining has just been wrong & arrogant and quite stupid they miscalculated their response and miscalculated other things too which makes me think what are they going to miscalculate next. Everything is so uncertain dont know where all the foreign fighters are coming from but they are pouring in. There are people in Russia who want to go and fight for Assad it isnt just Jihadis that want to go fight there. It is just so uncertain I dont think it can be controlled and its more likely to escalte than not.

meanwhile the world gives america enough rope to maybe bring us all down with their foreign policy games

we play a very dangerous game allowing this to happen while we all sit back bothered about everything but the real important stuff like holding governments to account, especially ones with millions of pages of evidence building up as to how it conducts it's business worldwide

Jonny7

Seems to be pretty dependent on people's perspectives..

When the incumbent Gbagbo refused to give up power after he lost the election in Ivory coast, ushering in the prospect of another 15 years of civil war, the UN and France went in, with force, and removed the guy, literally arrested him in his wife-beater.

Some, who may be overly cynical of France, can point out the history, can say that was the French government interfering in an African nation, meddling, imperialism..

and to be blunt they'd be relatively correct

But in the context and reality of the situation, it was the right thing to do. We can't change history, we can only deal with the present bull**** and try to avoid repeating it.


Now in Syria, an unelected leader is using/abusing his country's assets to oppress, kill and subdue it's citizens into accepting his leadership - he was the one entity in the entire country whom had to power to bring it to the ballot box, instead he chose civil war - that says everything we need to know about his popularity and his rule.

It's pretty black and white, we wouldn't accept it in this country and it's wrong.

Yet when the US calls it wrong, that's different, that pisses certain people off, and the moral compass quickly changes. Historically, Iraq, Cold War, complex relationships with unsavory regimes, conflicting stances - it's the hypocrisy that grinds people's gears.

So if Obama genuinely wants democracy in Syria for the benefit of the Syrian people, for the prospect of a normal stable country.. that's just impossible for some to even consider, not because they know his intentions, but simply because he carries the stigma of Bush, the Iraq war, the Cold War, and every nasty piece of American history behind him.. and so will the next US president and the next and so on..

I would wager few in this thread genuinely support Gadaffi and Assad (unless they have a few screws loose) but that it's really just down to politics and perspective.

The sad thing is, if there was an earthquake in Syria tomorrow, government would drop the bull****, and everyone would chip in for aid and relief. Just a great pity it's not happening under the present situation.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

So if Obama genuinely wants democracy in Syria for the benefit of the Syrian people, for the prospect of a normal stable country.. that's just impossible for some to even consider, not because they know his intentions, but simply because he carries the stigma of Bush, the Iraq war, the Cold War, and every nasty piece of American history behind him.. and so will the next US president and the next and so on..

I am not sure if you really understand US foreign policy, particularly in the middle east. It is not that Obama has to shake off the stigma of Bush, it is that he has simply continued on from Bush, and Bush himself continued on from Clinton, and so an so forth. I am just amazed at some peoples understanding or comprehension of the US actions. I mean, it is said publicly in speeches etc, that the US will do whatever they have to protect their foregin interests abroad, always failing to elaborate on what are those foreign interests.

I am no fan of Assad, or a lot of polticians who are in power, but to say, or even suggest that the motive behind the USs constant intervention in the middle east and further afield is to install democracy is laughable. In fact, it is so blatantly obvious that this is not the case once you do some proper research, that it seems quite incredible that so many people live with such ignorance.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

I am not sure if you really understand US foreign policy, particularly in the middle east.

Possibly, but back when I knew nothing and was just reading Chomsky and Zinn and watching documentaries of course thought I knew it all.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

Possibly, but back when I knew nothing and was just reading Chomsky and Zinn and watching documentaries of course thought I knew it all.

Don't worry, I read far more authors than those you just condescendingly mentioned. However, if nowadays you don't agree with, for example Chomsky, it is up to you to prove him wrong. This can be quite difficult as he likes to deal with these little things called facts, albeit you or I dont have the time like he does to study endlessly government documents to gain such facts.

HansHolzel

Chomsky wasn't very strong on the facts re Cambodia and Serbia.

esteve

HansHolzel wrote: »

Chomsky wasn't very strong on the facts re Cambodia and Serbia.

would you care to elaborate? I am well aware of such mud slinging regarding his position on both situations, but it was just that, careless and conflated exagerrations of what he had said to try discredit him, typical stuff really.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

Don't worry, I read far more authors than those you just condescendingly mentioned. However, if nowadays you don't agree with, for example Chomsky, it is up to you to prove him wrong. This can be quite difficult as he likes to deal with these little things called facts, albeit you or I dont have the time like he does to study endlessly government documents to gain such facts.

It appears I know enough about US foreign policy to spot a Chomsky-ite in less than a paragraph! just kidding

I was attempting to point out, maybe clumsily, that this was more a debate on US foreign policy than it was on the situation in Syria, one of my pet peeves

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

It appears I know enough about US foreign policy to spot a Chomsky-ite in less than a paragraph! just kidding

I was attempting to point out, maybe clumsily, that this was more a debate on US foreign policy than it was on the situation in Syria, one of my pet peeves

I hope you are just kidding as such condescending and childish remarks have little place in a debate and literally dont make any sense, in light of my own opinion and the topic as a whole. I could equally conjure up some unintelligient ´name´for you based on your own opinion, but such irrelavant side tracking has no place here.

My point, and to bring things back on track, is that if you objectively look at US foreign policy, particularly since WWII, it would be more acceptable to believe that the motivations behind their constant interventions are not for the installation of democratic structures in different countries, but in fact to protect or further their own foreign interests abroad. In saying that, of course, their interest and involvement in Syria could be purely a noble cause based on their real and desired believe in democracy, although i do not believe this to be the case, by looking at their past history in the middle east and throught out the world.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

I hope you are just kidding as such condescending and childish remarks have little place in a debate and literally dont make any sense, in light of my own opinion and the topic as a whole. I could equally conjure up some unintelligient ´name´for you based on your own opinion, but such irrelavant side tracking has no place here.

My point, and to bring things back on track, is that if you objectively look at US foreign policy, particularly since WWII, it would be more acceptable to believe that the motivations behind their constant interventions are not for the installation of democratic structures in different countries, but in fact to protect or further their own foreign interests abroad. In saying that, of course, their interest and involvement in Syria could be purely a noble cause based on their real and desired believe in democracy, although i do not believe this to be the case, by looking at their past history in the middle east and throught out the world.

Do I.. don't I...

hnnngg.. can't resist.

Has anyone in this thread suggested what you are describing above?

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

Do I.. don't I...

hnnngg.. can't resist.

Has anyone in this thread suggested what you are describing above?

What? Im not really sure what you are saying here or how to answer your question. If you want to know the answer to your own question, i suggest you reread through the various posts and stop being so obtuse.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

What? Im not really sure what you are saying here or how to answer your question. If you want to know the answer to your own question, i suggest you reread through the various posts and stop being so obtuse.

Earlier you posted

but to say, or even suggest that the motive behind the USs constant intervention in the middle east and further afield is to install democracy is laughable

To be honest I don't think there is anyone who holds that position in this thread.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

To be honest I don't think there is anyone who holds that position in this thread.

I actually think there are other people who would share this opinion, in this thread and throughout the world, but its not my responsibilty to highlight them or is at all relevant. But even if there werent, that would not mean that my opinion is less valid, or untrue, simply that i dont follow the masses. Again, stop being so obtuse, what exactly is your point?

Eggy Baby!

Jonny7 wrote: »

Any powerful nation can be personified in the same way, it's a general rule rather that a specific trait. Imperialism is a word I would associate more with the UK, Netherlands, Spain, France, Portugal a few hundred years ago, but feel free to apply to modern day powers such as US, Russia and China.


If the US opposing Assad falls under your take on "imperialism", then logically if US took the position of Russia and started arming Assad - that wouldn't be imperialism?

If you consider both are imperialism, then Russia and Iran are fairly damn isolated on their stances.

Meddling in the affairs of a foreign country in which you have no business (particularly if it is for your own gain or as part of a grand design for the broader region) generally is imperialism. The imperialism that the Americans practice today may not be as overt as that of, let's say, the British or the French back in the day, but it is the same in spirit.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

I actually think there are other people who would share this opinion, in this thread and throughout the world, but its not my responsibilty to highlight them or is at all relevant. But even if there werent, that would not mean that my opinion is less valid, or untrue, simply that i dont follow the masses. Again, stop being so obtuse, what exactly is your point?

Good, I just don't see much evidence of it in this thread but anyway

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Meddling in the affairs of a foreign country in which you have no business (particularly if it is for your own gain or as part of a grand design for the broader region) generally is imperialism. The imperialism that the Americans practice today may not be as overt as that of, let's say, the British or the French back in the day, but it is the same in spirit.

Semantics and definitions maybe. The only reason I'd drag up a word like imperialism to e.g. describe Russian involvement in Syria, would be to labour a point, most likely criticism.

Norwesterner

Jonny7 wrote: »

Semantics and definitions maybe. The only reason I'd drag up a word like imperialism to e.g. describe Russian involvement in Syria, would be to labour a point, most likely criticism.

Russia is helping Syria in its War on Islamic Terror.
If thats Imperialism, then we're Imperialists for sending peacekeepers to Africa.

FTA69

In a separate development on Sunday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported that Islamist rebels in Aleppo had executed a 15-year-old boy in front of his parents as punishment for what they regarded as a blasphemous comment.

The UK-based activist group said Mohammed Qataa was shot in the face and neck a day after being seized by the rebels, who allegedly overheard the teenager tell someone: "Even if the Prophet Muhammad comes down [from heaven], I will not become a believer."

Before executing the boy, one of the rebels reportedly told onlookers: "Disbelieving in God is polytheism and cursing the Prophet is polytheism. Whoever curses even once will be punished like this."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22840728

Great bunch of freedom fighters. Send them guns immediately.

Sierra Oscar

I see that the rebels have bombed a a public area in central Damascus again, the aim being to target residential and commercial properties and not the security forces.

And the rebels wonder why they are rapidly losing popular support?

Jonny7

Again for some perspective

There are atrocities on both sides. Recently those by jihadists have been condemned by the main rebel group. According to the SOHR and UN the bulk of these atrocities have been commited by Assad's security forces and the pro-government militia's since the beginning of the conflict, which also triggered much of the escalating violence.

Kerry is talking about a no-fly zone, this has been raised several times in the past 2 years, it's more of a propaganda chip against Assad, but we'll see how tangible it will become.

Due to the arrival of shia groups and Hezbollah, the US and EU claim they can arm the rebels without those arms reaching the jihadist groups

Suff

FTA69 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22840728

Great bunch of freedom fighters. Send them guns immediately.

I swear Syria under Assad is heaven compared to these bastards!

Jonny7

Suff wrote: »

I swear Syria under Assad is heaven compared to these bastards!

Short selective memory

Seaneh

Jonny7 wrote: »

Short selective memory

Seeing as he is Syrian I'd say he's in a much better position to make that call than you are to question it.

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

Again for some perspective

There are atrocities on both sides. Recently those by jihadists have been condemned by the main rebel group. According to the SOHR and UN the bulk of these atrocities have been commited by Assad's security forces and the pro-government militia's since the beginning of the conflict, which also triggered much of the escalating violence.

Kerry is talking about a no-fly zone, this has been raised several times in the past 2 years, it's more of a propaganda chip against Assad, but we'll see how tangible it will become.

Due to the arrival of shia groups and Hezbollah, the US and EU claim they can arm the rebels without those arms reaching the jihadist groups

The SOHR are not impartial in my opinion when reporting on events in Syria. They are based in the UK using a network of "sources" for their information. I think Kerry is living in fairy land if he believes he will get a UNSC resolution endorsing a no-fly zone over Syria.

downonthefarm

the minute they go into Israel is when we will see the mushroom cloud boooom

Jonny7

Seaneh wrote: »

Seeing as he is Syrian I'd say he's in a much better position to make that call than you are to question it.

I've been reading these posts for more than two years and work with Syrian expats. They hate these Islamist brigades but they don't have short selective memories as to why they are there nor what was giong on before they arrived.

Duggys Housemate

downonthefarm wrote: »

the minute they go into Israel is when we will see the mushroom cloud boooom

nuts. Israel is not blowing up anything in its neighborhood unless it is absolutely threatened.

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

The SOHR are not impartial in my opinion when reporting on events in Syria. They are based in the UK using a network of "sources" for their information. I think Kerry is living in fairy land if he believes he will get a UNSC resolution endorsing a no-fly zone over Syria.

I agree they are not entirely impartial. Objective information is difficult, foreign journalists have largely been barred, yet many have managed to get in, they paint the same general picture. Likewise when the Arab league observers were present. The UN also plays a part as well as many of the witnesses and refugees passing across the borders every day. Assad used armored vehicles, tanks, artillery and even warships to shell civilian areas (and still does) He uses militias to terrorise the smaller villages and towns - this is well documented. However the actual number of casualties cannot be known with any great accuracy.

Suff

Jonny7 wrote: »

I've been reading these posts for more than two years and work with Syrian expats. They hate these Islamist brigades but they don't have short selective memories as to why they are there nor what was giong on before they arrived.

The thing to note here ... is that my statement relates to the before after condition.

Done a comparison format, I'd like to know which of the two do you think is better ... Syria now or 3 years ago?

Again, the idea, notion and objective to change Syria for the better (Assad or no Assad) has always been there, My issue is with the methods and means that have been applied (internally and externally) to facilitate this change.

Suff

Jonny7 wrote: »

However the actual number of casualties cannot be known with any great accuracy.

When you hear a figure of 80,000 know that it's easily double that figure ... not every death is reported.

Jonny7

Suff wrote: »

The thing to note here ... is that my statement relates to the before after condition.

Done a comparison format, I'd like to know which of the two do you think is better ... Syria now or 3 years ago?

Again, the idea, notion and objective to change Syria for the better (Assad or no Assad) has always been there, My issue is with the methods and means that have been applied (internally and externally) to facilitate this change.

I fully agree, Syria now is infinitely worse than Syria 3 years ago. The leadership is seeing to that. They are not stupid, they know people will accept an autocratic state over a country that is wracked by civil war.

Considering opposition was banned, elections were rigged shams and peaceful protests were met with violence, can you please outline the methods and means available to the peope of Syria to choose their own leaderhip and future?

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

I agree they are not entirely impartial. Objective information is difficult, foreign journalists have largely been barred, yet many have managed to get in, they paint the same general picture. Likewise when the Arab league observers were present. The UN also plays a part as well as many of the witnesses and refugees passing across the borders every day. Assad used armored vehicles, tanks, artillery and even warships to shell civilian areas (and still does) He uses militias to terrorise the smaller villages and towns - this is well documented. However the actual number of casualties cannot be known with any great accuracy.

Syria is a sectarian civil war Assad is no angel and is responsible for some terrible things we all know that though both sides are carrying out horrible deeds and acts that is what happens in a civil war. The reality of the situation is that no matter how bad each side are, they both have their backers Syria is just a pawn in a bigger strategical game. The powers that be should be focusing on workable ways to end what is happening but the West is being ridiculous and their position bizzare from a realpolitikal point of view. The Wests position is that Assad needs to step down as part of the solution. This is an unreasonable position to take as he isnt going to step down. Now that his forces are getting the upper hand why would he sit down and negotiate his position he has no reason too so he wont. As long as the West maintain such a position there can be no political settlement the fighting will continue until such a time as intervention takes place to take out Assad. And if that happens the entire middle east will explode. The US/Western position is strange.

They treat Russia with contempt and are siding with, perhaps now about to start arming the same Jihadis they have been telling us since 2001 are the enemy. Bizzare. We can continue to claim each side is worse than the other but that isnt going to solve whats happening. The US/West recognising that Syria falls under a Russian spehere of influence with Assad being their man is the only way this can be sorted out politically. As unpalatable as it might be that Assad remains in power as each day goes by its looking more and more like that he will. This isnt to say this is a good thing the Americans got their strategy ar5eways we can see it playing out infront of us.

Suff

Jonny7 wrote: »

can you please outline the methods and means available to the people of Syria to choose their own leaderhip and future?

First, any change that recruits violence to achieve its objective will result in more violence. I've said this before 'You cannot clean blood with blood'. Arming an uprising against a dictator to enforce a regime change is naive ... if not stupid.

I understand how people might be sick of this statement, but Syria is different to any other Middle Eastern country, lebanon is our closest neighbour, and yet we differ from it. The Ba'ath regime have been embedding itself firmly within the Syrian social and economic fabric (they're not as stupid as the media portrays them), removing them resembles trying to unroot a 100 year old tree, even if you took the trunk/ log out the roots will remain, and will continue to operate in some way or form to re-vive and re-establish itself again, by applying a new face.

We call this 'Tarabeesh game' - move the same collection of fez hats around the same group of heads.

The only solution is to conduct peaceful dialogue. Yes ... people have been shot, kidnapped and tortured, which can only indicate that this peaceful approach have had a significant effect on the regime. The biggest mistake the opposition ever made was when they took arms. They have managed to erase all the previous efforts, lose the majority of public support (mine included), and destroy the country. They became fragmented and weak, and have successfully managed to lose their voice and power of influence. They should have called their bluff by accepting the regime's invite for talks that were called late 2011.

The regime on the other hand, benefited greatly from all this, a united front is stronger as we have seen - applying all of its resources and brutal force to destroy and remove all traces of the opposition (FSA, foreign fighters, Al Nusra and other crazy bastards) on the ground, cleverly plotting to further divid their already fragmented opponent - allowing the regime to sit at a stronger seat, while the opposition, who would have to agree to attend the negotiations, comes to the table without any pre-set conditions.

Meaning, the regime is going to control the rules for the next round of the 'Fez game'.

There's only one way out of this mess ... and its for both sides to sit at the same table (with their allies), and start talking ... for once.

Personally, I don't care anymore who win, Assad (means lion) duck or fish! as long as the fighting stops ... its going to take a considerable amount of effort and time to rebuild Syria, you need Syrians for that, I'm worried that by the time this war is over there won't be enough Syrians for the job.

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

Syria is a sectarian civil war Assad is no angel and is responsible for some terrible things we all know that though both sides are carrying out horrible deeds and acts that is what happens in a civil war.

It became a civil war. It didn't start as one.

The US/Western position is strange.

Most nations supported the position of the protesters, Assad's rule as illegitimate and strongly condemned the regimes violent crackdown

They treat Russia with contempt

Russia is supporting Assad for it's own reasons, one of which is the fulfillment of big arms contracts it made in 2010. Netanyahu called up Putin to protest the sale of the s300's to Syria, Putin offered to sell the missiles to Israel.

they have been telling us since 2001 are the enemy.

Western countries in general, e.g. UK, are actively trying to stop their citizens joining the war in Syria and returning home radicalised.

These brigades and groups have been arriving of their own volution, heavily armed and equipped, as well as men (and women) from all over the world making their way to Syria and aligning themselves with the rebels for a myriad of causes. This has complicated the conflict hugely.

The US/West recognising that Syria falls under a Russian spehere of influence

There's no sphere of influence, it's not the Cold War anymore. The Russians want Assad replaced, he is just a good customer.

This isnt to say this is a good thing the Americans got their strategy ar5eways we can see it playing out infront of us.

That's what this thread is all about

Seaneh

Jonny7 wrote: »

There's no sphere of influence, it's not the Cold War anymore.

Are you really that naive?

Seriously?