Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
What if Assad is telling the truth?
Comments
-
http://rt.com/politics/us-russia-iran-syria-missile-defense-opposition-688/
RT the Russian news channel beleive lies are being told in that the west wants Syria removed from the equation because the bigger picture is Iran.
Syria is seen as a country that would cause trouble if and more likely when Iran is attacked.
The same TV channel also showed an auction taking part in Saudi Arabia, a father was auctioning off his son. His son was going to Syria to blow himself up and to kill people alligned with Assad.
The truth is it is hard to believe anything one hears, it suits the west to blame Assad for everything, when this is not the full story.
It is similar to Iraq and the WMD.
When you quote RT in support of your argument, you lose credibility immediately. No-one takes RT seriously, not even RT takes themselves seriously. It's a propaganda outlet, its job is to peddle lies.0 -
No-one takes RT seriously
i.e You.if Assad has nothing to hide, then why not let in Investigators from any country in the world, even a neutral county.
Actually observers from the Arab League were let in.Let in the media.
I've seen Russia Today in Damascus.Have a court case where those accused can defend themselves.
Unfortunately law and order is thrown out the window in a rebellion. Some crimes are just lost forever, or found long after the perpetrators are dead and gone.
Also note that Syria is a particularly oppressive and undemocratic dictatorship. If any trials were to be held then they would most likely be staged.It's blatently obvious Assad forces committed this massacre and all the the other massacres.
Its blatantly obvious to you despite there being no media "let in" as you said earlier. How are you so sure if there's been according to you no media present at anything that happened?because Assad is 100% guilty of this crime, everyone knows this, even the Russians, Chinese and Kofi Annan.
Actually the Russians are pursuing a very neutral viewpoint. They are no even pro-Assad. Technically they are just wary of what the west will do with resolutions, as seen in Libya, when the resolution by the UN was wholeheartedly abused by NATO beyond its mandate.
Added to this, Russia simply has the legal right to veto any resolution because its on the Security Council. But I'm guessing the evil Russians are up to their dirty tricks again, and stunting Freedom and Democracy from being spread all over Syria?
Oh yeah, name me a credible news source then plasmaguy (what you would regard as a credible news source).0 -
Eggy Baby! wrote: »Actually observers from the Arab League were let in.
Under severe pressure. Feck all journo's are allowed to report what really is going on, the ones that do are snook into the country.Eggy Baby! wrote: »Actually the Russians are pursuing a very neutral viewpoint. They are no even pro-Assad. Technically they are just wary of what the west will do with resolutions, as seen in Libya, when the resolution by the UN was wholeheartedly abused by NATO beyond its mandate.
Laughable. Russia has a military base in Syria and Syria buys arms from them, thats why they veto the UN resolutions.Eggy Baby! wrote: »Added to this, Russia simply has the legal right to veto any resolution because its on the Security Council. But I'm guessing the evil Russians are up to their dirty tricks again, and stunting Freedom and Democracy from being spread all over Syria?
The Security Council should be reformed, veto's are based on who won WWII. Its dated and does not reflect the modern makeup of the world.0 -
Eggy Baby! wrote: »i.e You.
Actually observers from the Arab League were let in.
I've seen Russia Today in Damascus.
Unfortunately law and order is thrown out the window in a rebellion. Some crimes are just lost forever, or found long after the perpetrators are dead and gone.
Also note that Syria is a particularly oppressive and undemocratic dictatorship. If any trials were to be held then they would most likely be staged.
Its blatantly obvious to you despite there being no media "let in" as you said earlier. How are you so sure if there's been according to you no media present at anything that happened?
Actually the Russians are pursuing a very neutral viewpoint. They are no even pro-Assad. Technically they are just wary of what the west will do with resolutions, as seen in Libya, when the resolution by the UN was wholeheartedly abused by NATO beyond its mandate.
Added to this, Russia simply has the legal right to veto any resolution because its on the Security Council. But I'm guessing the evil Russians are up to their dirty tricks again, and stunting Freedom and Democracy from being spread all over Syria?
Oh yeah, name me a credible news source then plasmaguy (what you would regard as a credible news source).
Where is the evidence so the FSA killed all these people in Houla?
It's blatently clear it was pro Assad forces, no-one seriously doubts this. This is not my opinion by the way, so please save yourself the personal attacks on me. This is the world opinion save for pro Assad allies in Russia and Russia Today.
Russia Today is pro Assad, they don't count as independent media, so you will have to come up with a better source than pro Assad media such as SANA and RT.0 -
Laughable. Russia has a military base in Syria and Syria buys arms from them, thats why they veto the UN resolutions.
Russia has been selling arms to Syria for decades. Syria is more of an acquaintance to Russia than a friend. They do not sign alliances or non-aggression pacts and Syria is not a member of the SCO. To be honest, Russia will sell arms to anybody that is willing to buy them. Yes it has a military base in Syria, but it also has a military base in Ukraine and that does not make them friends.
From Wikipedia: Tartus (in Syria) hosts a Soviet-era naval supply and maintenance base, under a 1971 agreement with Syria, which is still staffed by Russian naval personnel. The base was established during the Cold War to support the Soviet Navy fleet in the Mediterranean Sea.
Notice "Soviet-era". It is an old naval base from Soviet times which the Russian decided to retain.
Syria is as much an ally of Russia as Israel is to the USA (and Israel isn't that big of an ally of the USA).Feck all journo's are allowed to report what really is going on, the ones that do are snook into the country.
Hence why we should approach this thing with caution, due to the lack of certainty about, well, everything.Where is the evidence so the FSA killed all these people in Houla?
The funny thing is that the massacre only just happened. There is no evidence or formal investigation as to the perpetrators. There is no evidence, on the other hand, that Assad was responsible (the only people who have said so are the Americans and other western governments, and the opposition-all of which have vested interests in seeing Assad go!).It's blatently clear it was pro Assad forces, no-one seriously doubts this. This is not my opinion by the way, so please save yourself the personal attacks on me. This is the world opinion save for pro Assad allies in Russia and Russia Today.
The west says it so it must be true! Remember these are the people who lied about the WMDs in Iraq and are trying to dupe us all into another confrontation with Iran.
Let me explain this a little bit simpler:
There is a broad spectrum of opinions on Syria. On one end is the "Military intervention! Sanctions! Assad is responsible for every bullet fired and every child killed!" crowd, represented by the USA, the UK, Israel and various western media outlets. On the other end is the "We must prevent imperialist intervention in Syria! All deaths are caused by armed terrorist gangs and Al-Qaeda!" crowd, represented by SANA, Assad himself and his Ba'athist supporters. Both of these opinions are extremely wrong. Both are trying to outdo the other with propaganda and disinformation, as both have a vested interest in this conflict- Assad wants to stay in power and the Americans (and all their followers) want him out.
I would regard myself in the middle- as I believe neither Assad nor "armed terrorist groups" are individually solely to blame for this carnage. Blame should fall on both sides. The sad thing is, is that if Assad falls, and a new government is formed, then the likely crimes of the rebels and armed militias will likely be whitewashed and their actions painted as glorious.
(P.S I wasn't making personal attacks at you, so don't try and vindicate my argument by saying that I was)The Security Council should be reformed, veto's are based on who won WWII. Its dated and does not reflect the modern makeup of the world.
The security council should be disbanded, more like it. Why should any country be able to exercise veto over another? No matter how strong. But for the time being, Russia is allowed to exercise its veto legally. Unfortunately we have to get used to it.Russia Today is pro Assad, they don't count as independent media
Because they even slightly disagree with you, they are pro-Assad? Please.
They're not even close to the pro-Assad camp.
Have a look at the book Manufacturing Consent for a look at how western independent media operates. Greater people than I have written about this.Under severe pressure.
But they were let in nonetheless.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Quoting a Russia govt-owned megaphone and wikipedia is almost as naive and laughable as stating that "Russia is more of an acquaintance than an ally".0
-
Eggy Baby! wrote: »............
Actually the Russians are pursuing a very neutral viewpoint. They are no even pro-Assad. Technically they are just wary of what the west will do with resolutions, as seen in Libya, when the resolution by the UN was wholeheartedly abused by NATO beyond its mandate.
Added to this, Russia simply has the legal right to veto any resolution because its on the Security Council. But I'm guessing the evil Russians are up to their dirty tricks again, and stunting Freedom and Democracy from being spread all over Syria?
Oh yeah, name me a credible news source then plasmaguy (what you would regard as a credible news source).
The Russians are protecting an ally. They're doing it in the same fashion as the US etc and in almost a mocking way betimes.0 -
Quoting a Russia govt-owned megaphone and wikipedia is almost as naive and laughable as stating that "Russia is more of an acquaintance than an ally".
Genetic fallacy. So a small paragraph from Wikipedia about Tartus has been highjacked by Assad and Putin? Whatever.
And yeah, they were an ally during Soviet times, but that has diminished somewhat.
An "alliance" denotes something mutual. If anything, the Russians are looking to use Syria. Nothing mutual about that.0 -
When you quote RT in support of your argument, you lose credibility immediately. No-one takes RT seriously, not even RT takes themselves seriously. It's a propaganda outlet, its job is to peddle lies.
All news outlets peddle lies and push their own agenda.
The only news outlets that don't peddle lies are independently funded by their viewers.
I said in another thread that if the US/EU are so concerned about humanity suffering, why don't they try feeding the 25,000 people that starve to death every day?
Why not try resolve problems in your own country instead of creating them in places like Syria through funding thugs to murder women and children and place the blame on Assad forces?
UK/US/Israel have an agenda of their own and don't care about Syrian people.0 -
All news outlets peddle lies and push their own agenda.
Agreed. All news stations have a slant.0 -
Advertisement
-
When a government refuses to allow in international journalists to interview people on the ground then they are hiding something.
I would consider someone like Robert Fisk for example to be a fairly neutral, independent journalist as he has no problem attacking the West as anyone else. There are quite a few others of similar stance in every country. Also Seymour Hersh is also as lightly to criticise the west and would be neutral enough. Even someone like Michael Moore should be allowed in. These would be the kind of independent people who should be let in and there are thousands more journalists like them who have no bias towards one side or the other but who would investigate the issues and who are not simple headed propagandists like SANA and RT.
Of course Assad won't allow in such indepndent journalists, which means he has something to hide. Assad is a thug and a mass murderer, he has committed hundreds of massacres just like Houla now, but for some Houla is the last straw, and rightly so. He's a thug who keeps tested the will and patience of the international community and its almost a game for him now, as it always is with these tin pot dictators. It almost seems like they want to see how far they can push it and he will keep murdering innocent civilians to show he can do what he likes. The guy is a maniac, far worse than Gadaffi, and worse even than Milosevic.
There will be many more massacres, the day after Houla almost 100 people died across the country in more shelling and massacres and it almost went unnoticed.0 -
Are you being deliberately obtuse and contrary? The above is far too misguided to be taken as fair comment. The middle east has been and continues to be the central theatre of operations between two alliances for decades now. There is absolutely NO change in who benefits who by proxy in the region.Eggy Baby! wrote: »Genetic fallacy. So a small paragraph from Wikipedia about Tartus has been highjacked by Assad and Putin? Whatever.
And yeah, they were an ally during Soviet times, but that has diminished somewhat.
An "alliance" denotes something mutual. If anything, the Russians are looking to use Syria. Nothing mutual about that.
Enough with the naive anti-west pamphletic diatribe and accompanying wiki-wagging.0 -
Eggy Baby! wrote: »Because they even slightly disagree with you, they are pro-Assad? Please.
They're not even close to the pro-Assad camp.
Have a look at the book Manufacturing Consent for a look at how western independent media operates. Greater people than I have written about this.
You bring up "Manufacturing Consent", yet you use state-run TV as a source... that makes no sense.0 -
When a government refuses to allow in international journalists to interview people on the ground then they are hiding something.
I would consider someone like Robert Fisk for example to be a fairly neutral, independent journalist as he has no problem attacking the West as anyone else. There are quite a few others of similar stance in every country. Also Seymour Hersh is also as lightly to criticise the west and would be neutral enough. Even someone like Michael Moore should be allowed in. These would be the kind of independent people who should be let in and there are thousands more journalists like them who have no bias towards one side or the other but who would investigate the issues and who are not simple headed propagandists like SANA and RT.
Of course Assad won't allow in such indepndent journalists, which means he has something to hide. Assad is a thug and a mass murderer, he has committed hundreds of massacres just like Houla now, but for some Houla is the last straw, and rightly so. He's a thug who keeps tested the will and patience of the international community and its almost a game for him now, as it always is with these tin pot dictators. It almost seems like they want to see how far they can push it and he will keep murdering innocent civilians to show he can do what he likes. The guy is a maniac, far worse than Gadaffi, and worse even than Milosevic.
There will be many more massacres, the day after Houla almost 100 people died across the country in more shelling and massacres and it almost went unnoticed.
How do we know Assad is responsible for Houla?
This is possibly another WMD type story, unknown facts reported as truth.
The western report where they blame the government, you don't see the western media reporting on the rebels who are able to kill as well as anyone, thanks to the weapons supplied by other nations to make sure Syria is a bloodbath.
Countries like Saudi Arabia support a war within the borders of Syria, they do this by sending in weapons and suicide bombers, but that is ok by the western media, better to have terrorism and suicide bombers in Syria than to have those Saudi suicide bombers that we had on 9/11.0 -
You bring up "Manufacturing Consent", yet you use state-run TV as a source... that makes no sense.
Um no I didn't bring up RT as a source. If you go back through the thread it was actually Min.
What I'm saying is is that indie media usually has some sort of reliance on government sources. Therefore they tend to reiterate the government's view. Plus they often bring on so-called "experts" who are very often from the government. Its a long book and I'm not going to repeat everything that was in it.
And have you ever watched Russia Today? Its hardly Pravda-style lie-peddling. I'll admit though that it does choose its stories very carefully. It agrees with me too much, as I said in another thread, and that makes me suspicious.Even someone like Michael Moore should be allowed in.
I am a liberal but that guy is a moron.Enough with the naive anti-west pamphletic diatribe and accompanying wiki-wagging.
What a load of pretentious crap. Clearly you are staunchly pro-west. Its impossible to argue with someone who believes that the Americans et al are here to bring the Syrian people freedom and liberty and gummy bears. Not because they actually present valid points, but because they constantly ad hominem you or your sources. Or accuse you of "wiki-wagging" when you quote one paragraph from an article on Tartus for reference.
(P.S I typed in "pamphletic diatribe" into google to see what the hell it meant, and the first result that came back was your post in this very thread. So clearly you are the first to use that precocious phrase on the internet. Good job!)The guy is a maniac, far worse than Gadaffi, and worse even than Milosevic.
Funnily enough, there are a lot of parallels between Assad and Milosevic. Although Milosevic was responsible for awful massacres and atrocities, he wasn't entirely to blame for the chaos in the Balkans. A lot of casualties were caused by Muslims and Croats and other ethnic militias too. But it was convenient for western nations to present Milosevic as the sole culprit, as their sole scapegoat. Also note the "success" of the bombing of Serbia.0 -
Eggy Baby! wrote: »Um no I didn't bring up RT as a source. If you go back through the thread it was actually Min.
Sorry my bad.What I'm saying is is that indie media usually has some sort of reliance on government sources. Therefore they tend to reiterate the government's view. Plus they often bring on so-called "experts" who are very often from the government. Its a long book and I'm not going to repeat everything that was in it.
I've read Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent (which I lapped up at the time) is very hypothetical and full of gaping flaws and inconsistencies.And have you ever watched Russia Today? Its hardly Pravda-style lie-peddling. I'll admit though that it does choose its stories very carefully. It agrees with me too much, as I said in another thread, and that makes me suspicious.
RT won't run any report that is critical of the Kremlin, if they did its high likely they wouldn't be on air.What a load of pretentious crap. Clearly you are staunchly pro-west.
This is directed at someone else, but many if not most threads concerning different international situations/events get hijacked and turned into generic blame-fests aimed at specific countries.
Personally I blame .. *spins wheel*.. CLACK CLACK CLACK.. Greenland. Have they spoken out against what is happening in Syria? no. Therefore they are tacitly supporting the regime, yadda, yadda
0 -
The Syrian conflict is probably too complex for us westerners to understand, it appears to be as sectarian as the fighting between Sunnis and Alawites in Tripoli, Lebanon the other day showed. If Assad is removed what then? Another Iraq? It's actually very similar to Iraq - another western "solution" after the break up of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawite_State0 -
Eggy Baby! wrote: »Um no I didn't bring up RT as a source. If you go back through the thread it was actually Min.
What I'm saying is is that indie media usually has some sort of reliance on government sources. Therefore they tend to reiterate the government's view. Plus they often bring on so-called "experts" who are very often from the government. Its a long book and I'm not going to repeat everything that was in it.
And have you ever watched Russia Today? Its hardly Pravda-style lie-peddling. I'll admit though that it does choose its stories very carefully. It agrees with me too much, as I said in another thread, and that makes me suspicious.
I am a liberal but that guy is a moron.
What a load of pretentious crap. Clearly you are staunchly pro-west. Its impossible to argue with someone who believes that the Americans et al are here to bring the Syrian people freedom and liberty and gummy bears. Not because they actually present valid points, but because they constantly ad hominem you or your sources. Or accuse you of "wiki-wagging" when you quote one paragraph from an article on Tartus for reference.
(P.S I typed in "pamphletic diatribe" into google to see what the hell it meant, and the first result that came back was your post in this very thread. So clearly you are the first to use that precocious phrase on the internet. Good job!)
Funnily enough, there are a lot of parallels between Assad and Milosevic. Although Milosevic was responsible for awful massacres and atrocities, he wasn't entirely to blame for the chaos in the Balkans. A lot of casualties were caused by Muslims and Croats and other ethnic militias too. But it was convenient for western nations to present Milosevic as the sole culprit, as their sole scapegoat. Also note the "success" of the bombing of Serbia.
You are sounding increasingly like an Assad apologist to me.
I would like to see you condemn Assad unconditionally and without qualification.
The guy is a mass murdering thug, there are no ifs, ands, maybes and buts about it. The buck stops with him. He is giving the orders, he orders the shelling, he orders the torture, the exections, the lot.
This is not a case of a leader out of touch with the apparatus of terror and people doing things without his knowledge. He knows full well what has gone on. In most countries where executions take place, even democracies, its usually a president, head of state or some similar high official who signs death warrants, and I've no doubt Assad has done the same.
He is 100% to blame for everything, there is no getting away from that. He was given a chance under the Annan deal to order his tanks back to barracks, and he refused to issue such an order. No-one else in Syria has the power to issue such an order than Assad.
Let's put the blame where the blame lies, ie Assad.
And I really wish you'd stop saying "funnily enough". There's nothing at all funny about this situation.
You also lose credibility when you accuse people of being pro west. What is happening in Syria has nothing to do with being pro or anti west. Its a mass murdering thug murdering his people.0 -
You are sounding increasingly like an Assad apologist to me.
I would like to see you condemn Assad unconditionally and without qualification.
I was waiting to be condemned as an Assad apologist.
Al-Assad (and his dad was even worse) is the worst secular dictator in the Middle East (The Saud family are worse). Syria is one of the most oppressive regimes in the region. His dad killed more people in a crackdown in Homs than Assad junior has so far in this uprising.
Basically he's like Saddam. A secular, oppressive Ba'athist who blames everything on "terrorists". He puts pictures of himself up everywhere and suppresses dissent with the only thing he is familiar with (force).
BUT take into account everything that is happening in Syria and who it borders. It borders Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Israel. We have seen sectarian chaos spreading into Lebanon and Israel. Turkey is being swarmed with refugees. It already has problems with Kurds in the east. Not to mention how shitty Iraq is now. If Syria fails, it will be like an appendix exploding in this region. I'm not trying to justify Assad and his actions. Simply put, the Syrian people would most likely prefer Assad's regime to anarchy, chaos, and sectarian exterminations. The Russians want Assad to stay but to enact broad reforms. IMO, that would be the best course of action.RT won't run any report that is critical of the Kremlin, if they did its high likely they wouldn't be on air.
Like I said- they choose their stories carefully. They present Putin et al in a favourable light, but don't worship them. You are right that they generally ignore reports that are critical of the Kremlin.And I really wish you'd stop saying "funnily enough". There's nothing at all funny about this situation.
I was being sarcastic.You also lose credibility when you accuse people of being pro west. What is happening in Syria has nothing to do with being pro or anti west. Its a mass murdering thug murdering his people.
Well clearly you won't accept that Assad is not 100% to blame. You also lose credibility when you call me an Assad apologist. I was replying to JustinDee, who accused me of some "anti-west pamphlogltic diarrhoea" or something fancy. I wasn't accusing JustinDee of being pro-west, I was simply stating it, based on empirical evidence such as him posting ardently in favour of western governments in other threads. I realise this is not a pro-west, anti-west issue- my reply to Justin was just an aside.The guy is a mass murdering thug
Agreed. I do not support people who say "it was armed terrorist gangs!" and you are associating me with the wrong crowd. I'm simply asking for a logical approach to this crisis. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
AND I disagree with the title of the thread- "What if Assad is telling the truth?" The guy is a dictator. He doesn't tell the truth.0 -
Here's a thought:
What if the massacre is indeed being committed by Assad's forces, or by militias which support him, but he himself hasn't authorized it or been made aware of it?
Or, what if it was done by rogue army members who aren't even sanctioned by military command?
I still reckon it's probably a state ordered thing, but it's only healthy to question the media instead of blindly accepting everything we're told...
EDIT: In case anyone uses my above musing to accuse me of in any way supporting Assad's regime, I absolutely detest all dictators in any and all areas of life and I still think the guy's scum regardless of his complicity in this particular massacre. Just look at my other posts on these forums if you doubt my belief in democracy.
I still say it's important to question "facts" in the media one way or another.0 -
Advertisement
-
You weren't presenting any "valid points". You were retroactively lifting conveniently selected lines in a strange defence of the Russian govt's official overseas megaphone.Eggy Baby! wrote: »What a load of pretentious crap. Clearly you are staunchly pro-west. Its impossible to argue with someone who believes that the Americans et al are here to bring the Syrian people freedom and liberty and gummy bears. Not because they actually present valid points, but because they constantly ad hominem you or your sources. Or accuse you of "wiki-wagging" when you quote one paragraph from an article on Tartus for reference
I'm not "pro" anything, whatever-your-name-is. Pigeon-holing is a lame retort.
Pardon myself for any originality I might put out there. If you want an explanation, it is referring to selective and convenient quoting or reference to a chosen 'cause du jour' ie. cherry-picked second-hand information with a convenient tilt.Eggy Baby! wrote: »(P.S I typed in "pamphletic diatribe" into google to see what the hell it meant, and the first result that came back was your post in this very thread. So clearly you are the first to use that precocious phrase on the internet. Good job!)0 -
You weren't presenting any "valid points". You were retroactively lifting conveniently selected lines in a strange defence of the Russian govt's official overseas megaphone.
I'm not "pro" anything, whatever-your-name-is. Pigeon-holing is a lame retort.
"Lifting conveniently selected lines"? Like what?
You call pigeon-holing a lame retort, having just accused me of being anti-western and using anti-west "pimplogtilitic diastrobe"?Pardon myself for any originality I might put out there. If you want an explanation, it is referring to selective and convenient quoting or reference to a chosen 'cause du jour' ie. cherry-picked second-hand information with a convenient tilt.
Also called "using sources". The only time I can recall doing this is when I lifted a paragraph off Wikipedia to illustrate how the Soviet Union and it's successor our dear old Russian Federation has been associates with Syria for a long time.Pardon myself for any originality I might put out there.
Also called "making up things to try and shock and awe me". I bet the Webster's Dictionary you ate this morning was tasty!0 -
Jesus, what a begrudging and deluded tirade. Its called an education, whoever you are.
Spare me the 'just good friends' bilge about Russia's tinkering with the region. It just belies any credibility and your apologetics just won't wash.0 -
So Assad gave a speech on June 3 and blamed foreign powers for creating divisions.
"Today, a year-and-a-half on, everything is clear and masks have fallen down. The international role in this crisis is now very clear."
He said Syria is facing a "plan of destruction" and a "war conducted from abroad."
It's hard to disagree with the man when we see the head of Foreign Affairs with the SNC mixing with the world's elite at the Bilderberg conference.0 -
Oh dear. Foreign powers such as Russia and China have already contributed more than enough to ensure divisions are maintained. It is no coincidence that he continually omits these two superpowers when whingeing about 'outsiders'.So Assad gave a speech on June 3 and blamed foreign powers for creating divisions0 -
So Assad gave a speech on June 3 and blamed foreign powers for creating divisions.
"Today, a year-and-a-half on, everything is clear and masks have fallen down. The international role in this crisis is now very clear."
He said Syria is facing a "plan of destruction" and a "war conducted from abroad."
It's hard to disagree with the man when we see the head of Foreign Affairs with the SNC mixing with the world's elite at the Bilderberg conference.
Interesting stuff sure enough.....is our man Sudds still hovering around Bilderberg these days ?
Somewhat incredible to see this gent agreeing with Mr Al-Assad.......
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0605/un-observer-says-foreign-actors-at-work-in-syria.html
Whats the odds on Maj Gen Mood being redeployed in the immediate future.....?Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Did anyone seriously expect Assad to come out and say something along the lines of "It's a fair cop, you got me, it was me who ordered the Houla Massacre" ?
Seriously, how naive are some people to believe Assad the Liar?
How many more of his lies are people willing to believe?
Of course the biggest lie of all is some people believing he is complying with the Annan peace plan.
If Assad pulled all his forces back to barracks, there would be no massacres.
The guy is a complete liar, and lying about the Houla massacre is just one more lie among thousands.
Not only is Assad a liar, all his supporters are liars too. To give one example, Russia has said a number of times it doesn't support Assad. Well why then does it continue to send weapons to Assad? These weapons shipments allow Assad to continue the massacres, surely even the Russians know that?0 -
Not only is Assad a liar, all his supporters are liars too. To give one example, Russia has said a number of times it doesn't support Assad. Well why then does it continue to send weapons to Assad? These weapons shipments allow Assad to continue the massacres, surely even the Russians know that?
Something like 10% of arms exports in Russia goes to Syria. Its unlikely they'd just stop. Plus they've been trading arms for the last 40 years. It's just business.Jesus, what a begrudging and deluded tirade. Its called an education, whoever you are.
Spare me the 'just good friends' bilge about Russia's tinkering with the region. It just belies any credibility and your apologetics just won't wash.
Sorry that Wikipedia is too plebeian for you.So Assad gave a speech on June 3 and blamed foreign powers for creating divisions.
"Today, a year-and-a-half on, everything is clear and masks have fallen down. The international role in this crisis is now very clear."
He said Syria is facing a "plan of destruction" and a "war conducted from abroad."
Unfortunately Assad isn't the most reliable of sources to quote on the matter!0 -
It's so very easy to be 100% certain of things at this remove I suppose....Plasmaguy: He is 100% to blame for everything, there is no getting away from that. He was given a chance under the Annan deal to order his tanks back to barracks, and he refused to issue such an order. No-one else in Syria has the power to issue such an order than Assad.
Let's put the blame where the blame lies, ie Assad.
And I really wish you'd stop saying "funnily enough". There's nothing at all funny about this situation.
You also lose credibility when you accuse people of being pro west. What is happening in Syria has nothing to do with being pro or anti west. Its a mass murdering thug murdering his people.
However I tend to have some regard for what a native Syrian thinks,and in this respect I'm accepting Suff's credentials at face value.Again, this is not a matter of black or white.
I am Syrian, and I do support a regime change in Syria, it is long over due but it has to be done correctly and not by armed interventions. You cannot clean blood with blood.
There are different groups running havoc in Syria, committing all sorts of atrocities in order to flare up the already blazed emotions of Syrians. Yes, we have issues with the Ba'ath regime and have suffered 40 years of it. But we don't want to see the country fall into a state of civil war due to schemes plotted by foreign players, which are using this notion to achieve their goals in the region.
Remember back in 2006, when the world watched Israel destroy Gaza and southern Lebanon, did we see Israeli officials and diplomats being given 72 hours to exit Western countries?? ...we know why, but when it comes to Syria, it is a different subject apparently.
As for what happened in Houla; we may never know the truth.
100% ism really does'nt serve to help issues such as we see in Syria....?Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Advertisement
-
It's so very easy to be 100% certain of things at this remove I suppose....
However I tend to have some regard for what a native Syrian thinks,and in this respect I'm accepting Suff's credentials at face value.
100% ism really does'nt serve to help issues such as we see in Syria....?
So you think Assad will step down through "negotiation" without any protests and so on? Frankly this viewpoint is utterly ludicrous.
Assad took over power from his father. He had two presidential elections since. There was only one candidate in each, Assad. He recently held a referendum which was supposed to change things and impose term limits. If Assad stood in the new presidential elections, he would be forced under the new constitution to leave power in 2028. That was his so-called reform, that was what he offered opponents if they stopped fighting, to step down in 2028.
Aside from that it wasn't the opposition who started the violence. So let's get that straight. Innocent protesters took to the street just like across the Arab world and Assad sent in the militia and snipers to slaughter innocent unarmed civilians. It was 6 months into this slaughter that the FSA was formed to defend civilians.
Using the Syrian, Russian or Chinese government as a source for anything is frankly pathetic. You cannot take one word they say at face value, so please don't. That's not directed at you in particular by the way, it's a general point. Assad and his allies have lied every day for the last year and they are accomplished liars. The best thing to do is believe the opposite of what they say.
It's also ludicrous to blame the FSA for anything. Without the FSA thousands more would be killed. At least the FSA forced Assad to sign up to the Annan plan although even that didn't work.0
Advertisement