Syrian violence

43109

I believe the uprisings in Syria are being orchestrated to extent by external factors much like what happened in Libya and was attempted in Iran before as well as Egypt.

In an episode of BBC Panorama broadcast 18 May 2003 called 'The War Party' Neo-conservatives are interviewed and asked what countries they believe should be "democratised"

The list included, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Egypt was also mentioned but what was somewhat interesting was what the Syrian Ambassador had to say in response to question of the threat from neoconservatism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGfTNwqHPdM&t=464

Rough transcript is:

Neocon: "The Iranians and the Syrians, they're even more nervous than the Saudis and Egyptians at this very moment. The Syrian regime are making comments that they think that they're next."

.....cuts to Syrian Embassy

Interviewer: "So, are the Syrians worried? I went to their embassy to ask if they took much notice of neoconservatives. Do they go to those American Enterprise Institute briefings?"

Ambassador: "Oh yes, I try to attend almost all their public meetings. Sometimes I find them amusing, sometimes they are really terrifying, the way they think, the way they would like to shape the world, the way they think they can impose their doctrine and their ideology on everybody else, even if force is needed"

Interviewer: "You worried"?

Ambassador: "No, we're not worried at all, we have our alliances, we have our friends
but I don't think they have any chance whatsoever of translating this agenda into policies"

There's a lot of evidence to suggest the current policies toward the middle east are those derived from neoconservative groups like the now extinct PNAC (Project For New American Century) and CNAS (Center for a New American Security) and of course AEI (American Enterprise Institute)

Jonny7

Yup, it was no secret that Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz subscribed to democratization of the Middle East, through force if necessary - in fact they falsely believed that Iraq would have a "domino effect" on the region, and each country was a step so to speak - Syria was one of those countries (about 7 in total I believe).

However they've since left office. There are a lot of Western (esp. US) funded pro-democracy groups all around the world, they mostly operate like NGOs.

Ali Mehdi Zeu had more to do with sparking the Arab Spring than the Neocons.

Brown Bomber

Jonny if you wanted to engineer regime change in Syria covertly and/or under the guise of a humanitarian mission what would you do?

43109

jonny7 wrote:

Ali Mehdi Zeu had more to do with sparking the Arab Spring than the Neocons.

I would doubt that to be honest.
How would a Tunisian street trader organize protests against the government on his own?

The funding of Pro-Democracy groups I would accept but the goal isn't really about spreading democracy. Do we enjoy democracy in our own countries? We have luxuries and entertainment to keep us sedated like zombies but do you really feel "free" ?

If you're working, you pay taxes without a choice and if you own property, you'll soon have to pay for that and water...nobody experiences "freedom" except the few rich who own everything.

This democratization is just about spreading western culture, the "free market" where everyone and everything is wide open to exploitation by foreigners with access to cheap money, everything is up for sale...

Jonny7

43109 wrote: »

I would doubt that to be honest.
How would a Tunisian street trader organize protests against the government on his own?

He's the guy that self-immolated.

The Arab Spring wasn't "engineered" by external forces.. unless you think the US has suddenly developed a keen interest in overthrowning the crown Prince in Saudi or the ruling family in Bahrain.

Jonny7

43109 wrote: »

The funding of Pro-Democracy groups I would accept but the goal isn't really about spreading democracy. Do we enjoy democracy in our own countries? We have luxuries and entertainment to keep us sedated like zombies but do you really feel "free" ?

Yes we do, I can chose to do what I want and live the way I want.

If you're working, you pay taxes without a choice and if you own property, you'll soon have to pay for that and water...nobody experiences "freedom" except the few rich who own everything.

Riiight....

This democratization is just about spreading western culture, the "free market" where everyone and everything is wide open to exploitation by foreigners with access to cheap money, everything is up for sale...

That's why we're in the top 10% to 5% in the world. We have the highest living standards, most job mobility, more equality/rights, religious freedom, healthcare, education, choice in higher education, social services, infrastructure, justice.

Capitalism is not perfect, but its the best system we have right now, there's a recession on and you're not standing in bread queues all day or digging in a field are you?

Democracy is not perfect either, but its by far the best political system..

Unless you would have preferred to live in a place like Syria or Libya, with their decades of emergency rule, secret police, censorship, leaders for decades, oppression, intimidation, surveillance, arbitrary arrest for your own political persuasion.. not exactly appealing to a conspiracy theorist I would have thought.

I know which I'd chose.

stuar

Free Syrian Army claim twin blasts, then deny it an hour later.
Colonel Arif Hamood claimed the FSA were behind the blasts in Aleppo, then another spokesman for the FSA said they weren't responsible?

http://www.france24.com/en/20120210-security-forces-aleppo-bomb-blasts-syria-bashar-al-assad-russia?autoplay=1

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4187947,00.html

There seems to be very little about the claim in the mainstream media, why claim it then deny it?

Jonny7

stuar wrote: »

Free Syrian Army claim twin blasts, then deny it an hour later.
Colonel Arif Hamood claimed the FSA were behind the blasts in Aleppo, then another spokesman for the FSA said they weren't responsible?

http://www.france24.com/en/20120210-security-forces-aleppo-bomb-blasts-syria-bashar-al-assad-russia?autoplay=1

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4187947,00.html

There seems to be very little about the claim in the mainstream media, why claim it then deny it?

It is in mainstream media.

One colonel appears to be claiming responsibility for attacking the buildings with small arms fire and rpgs - although the source of the explosion is unknown as of yet.

An FSA commander is saying they had nothing to do with the blasts.

As of yet there is no certainty who is planting these bombs..

The Syrian regime have been blaming terrorists, armed groups and Al Qaeda, where as the opposition/activists are blaming the regime for planting the bombs

Many commentators believe the regime are planting these bombs to prove their case that terrorist forces are the cause of the uprising and not genuine public protest. Most other leaders in the region experiencing their own uprisings have used similar lines, blaming either armed terrorists, Al Qaeda, or foreign groups.

stuar

Jonny7 wrote: »

It is in mainstream media.

One colonel appears to be claiming responsibility for attacking the buildings with small arms fire and rpgs - although the source of the explosion is unknown as of yet.

An FSA commander is saying they had nothing to do with the blasts.

As of yet there is no certainty who is planting these bombs..

The Syrian regime have been blaming terrorists, armed groups and Al Qaeda, where as the opposition/activists are blaming the regime for planting the bombs

Many commentators believe the regime are planting these bombs to prove their case that terrorist forces are the cause of the uprising and not genuine public protest. Most other leaders in the region experiencing their own uprisings have used similar lines, blaming either armed terrorists, Al Qaeda, or foreign groups.

Maybe foreign intelligence agencies working alongside the FSA were to blame, who knows, but Aleppo was one of Assads most loyal cities, it's a little like blaming Asssad for the Iranian nuclear scientists assassination.

And do you have any mainstream news reports about the FSA admitting these bombings because maybe my google is playing up but can't really find much, seems to be a bit more about them denying it.

43109

You'll notice the man in the video I posted talking about overthrowing the Syrian regime is James Woolsey, the same nut that blamed Iraq for 9/11 and saying Hezbollah and Hamas are enemies of U.S. with "Israel in between" -- yeah, sure.

James Woolsey content here

I'm really amazed most people can't join the dots and see the obvious pattern here...

I've a question for those who think the motives for supporting military intervention in Syria is purely altruistic in nature.

What happens when the regime of Syria is removed? Then what? Will we end up with the same trouble now taking place in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya? Is that really the positive outcome of all this?

I would be quite happy to see Assad removed but what are the motives of those in NATO? What do they hope to achieve in the end?

Nevermind the fact 48 million Americans are on foodstamps, let's go start more wars, that'll solve all our problems.

Jonny7

stuar wrote: »

Maybe foreign intelligence agencies working alongside the FSA were to blame, who knows, but Aleppo was one of Assads most loyal cities, it's a little like blaming Asssad for the Iranian nuclear scientists assassination.

The opposition should be claiming all of these bombings if they are responsible.. why wouldn't they?

Again, as before, with the bombing on the 23rd December, Syrian state TV was immediately on the scene and the regime was immediately blaming terrorist entities.

Since March last year, the Assad regime has been claiming that armed terrorist gangs are to blame for the protests. Now there are all these extremely suspicious "terrorist" bombs going off. You're the conspiracy theorist around here.. it should strike you as very odd.

And do you have any mainstream news reports about the FSA admitting these bombings because maybe my google is playing up but can't really find much, seems to be a bit more about them denying it.

The article I read was in the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9064047/Syria-uprising-live.html
Somewhere in the live updates.

Jonny7

43109 wrote: »

What happens when the regime of Syria is removed? Then what? Will we end up with the same trouble now taking place in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya? Is that really the positive outcome of all this?

Thank you - some good thinking.

What we are left with - is an extremely unstable country unfortunately.

Ben Ali fled instantly therefore Tunisia did not endure much strife and has relatively transitioned to some sort of "democracy" fairly quickly.

Egypt has been much slower, much more rocky path. Islamists getting into power, as predicted by almost everyone.

Libya with months of civil war, much more bitter, a lot of revenge killings, a lot of anger, a lot of paranoid men with guns.. a country that has suddenly had 40 years of leadership appartus ripped out. Again, very unstable. Will take a huge amount of time before it turns into a peaceful stable nation.

Syria will be much worse.

There is little or no "motive" for the West in this (as there was in Iraq). If anything, the region was "stable" under Assad, with whom they had relations, deals, etc with.

The West has enjoyed this status quo for decades - esp. a country like Egypt, a dictator, but "on side" so to speak. All Real Politik.

I don't actually expect any of these countries to transition into a semi-functioning democracy in the near future - and even if they do, I expect they shall have to undergo the powerful religious elements that will try to embed themselves in the leadership (much like the Iranian theocracy), and to weather the inevitable various military coups that will follow.

However, as a decent person in a democratic country, its not pleasant to see people, some very brave people, being killed by a man they didn't elect, a man who got into power through nepotism, like some Roman emperor, letting his country burn before considering stepping down.

Of course anyone can sit here and be bitter about the Russians supporting Assad, or be bitter about the US having supported Gaddafi, or the residual Mcnamara and Kissinger Cold War policies, or the hypocritical Neo-con agendas... but as of right now the Syrian people have little choice, they can get out there and chant and march for Assad and be safe.. or they can suffer and die and be tortured - just for a chance to be able to walk to a ballot box instead of having some pathological family dynasty run their country like a shooting club.

It's a ugly ugly business, but its not impossible to fathom than some politicians and leaders, as skeptical as we may be about them, actually do give a bit of a damn for people struggling to achieve what we take for granted.

Either way, as I've always said, the modern dictator who has control of the military holds all the cards. Mubarrak gave the order to shoot, and they didn't, and a civil war in Egypt was avoided, not so in Syria unfortunately.

43109

The only person I listen to when it comes to U.S. foreign policy is Zbigiew Brzezinski

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_GJMiVQIKk

Even he cannot stop the neocons no matter how much he wants to.

My guess is Obama will be re-elected and even influence a new Iranian regime which will collapse from outside pressue from 'Canvas/Otpor'

Absolutely no! I do not like him! but he is pulling strings, that's certain.

HavingCrack

43109 wrote: »

My guess is Obama will be re-elected and even influence a new Iranian regime which will collapse from outside pressue from 'Canvas/Otpor'

The current Iranian regime isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future. It has crushed countless rising and revolts against it in the past-violently if needs be and still commands the loyalties of the majority of the population. It is also immune to outside criticism and immune to the US led sanctions-it will merely turn more towards India, Russia and China as it is currently doing.

Even a new Iranian regime would probably be hostile to US interests. Even the leaders of the Iranian 'opposition' are in favour of nuclear power and nuclear weapons if neccessary. There's a significant amount of Iranians who are opposed to the regime but are not automatic pro-US stooges.

jackiebaron

43109 wrote: »

The only person I listen to when it comes to U.S. foreign policy is Zbigiew Brzezinski

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_GJMiVQIKk

Even he cannot stop the neocons no matter how much he wants to.

My guess is Obama will be re-elected and even influence a new Iranian regime which will collapse from outside pressue from 'Canvas/Otpor'

Absolutely no! I do not like him! but he is pulling strings, that's certain.

Wasn't he the scumbag who helped orchestrate events that roped the Soviets into Afghanistan and gleefully chimed that he'd just given the Russians their Vietnam?

Wonder how he feels now as he surveys the wreckage of the US intervention there.

Jaafa

40 Turkish intelligence officers captured in Syria, allegedly tasked with helping the opposition and carrying out bombings. Also US drones now flying over Syria,http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/report-u-s-drones-flying-over-syria-to-monitor-crackdown-1.413606

Amazing how quickly allies can turn into enemies.

Jonny7

Jaafa wrote: »

40 Turkish intelligence officers captured in Syria, allegedly tasked with helping the opposition and carrying out bombings.

And who made those allegations?

Also US drones now flying over Syria,http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/report-u-s-drones-flying-over-syria-to-monitor-crackdown-1.413606

This is all part of the international pressure campaign against Assad. What do you think the US should be doing in this situation?


As stated in the article "The Pentagon officials stressed that the U.S. is not preparing the ground for a military intervention, but is simply collecting evidence of President Bashar Assad's crackdown on protesters."

"The West has ruled out a Libya-style military intervention in Syria to stop 11 months of bloodshed."

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

This is all part of the international pressure campaign against Assad. What do you think the US should be doing in this situation?

Here's a crazy idea...How about they respect international law and not violate the airspace of a sovereign nation?

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Here's a crazy idea...How about they respect international law and not violate the airspace of a sovereign nation?

Not just air and sea, but satellites (from different nations) consistently "violate" territory across the globe.

If the US, Europe or any power want to put pressure on Assad and monitor what is going on in the country, then I don't see how that negatively affects the situation.

The more pressure on the Syrian leadership the more chance that they will crack. As of late they have been bolstered and emboldened so the violence has intensified.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Not just air and sea, but satellites (from different nations) consistently "violate" territory across the globe.

Is that some kind of half-arsed attempt at defending an act of war? These US drones are carrying out espionage, they are contravening universally held international standards relating to sovereignity of airspace and laws yet you put violate in quotes to make nothing of it.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is that some kind of half-arsed attempt at defending an act of war? These US drones are carrying out espionage, they are contravening universally held international standards relating to sovereignity of airspace and laws yet you put violate in quotes to make nothing of it.

There is nothing to be made of it. So far only the Chinese have protested the use of drones.

The South Koreans "violate" North Korean airspace for propaganda purposes, but it's considered legitimate by international parties because of the nature of the situation.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

There is nothing to be made of it.

So, to you, International law and basic principles of soveriegnity means nothing to you. Glad we cleared that up.

HavingCrack

Jaafa wrote: »

40 Turkish intelligence officers captured in Syria, allegedly tasked with helping the opposition and carrying out bombings.

I don't really see how regime change in Syria benefits Turkey hugely-surely a stable Syria under Assad is far more desireable to Turkey than an unstable country on the verge of civil war.

Brown Bomber

HavingCrack wrote: »

I don't really see how regime change in Syria benefits Turkey hugely-surely a stable Syria under Assad is far more desireable to Turkey than an unstable country on the verge of civil war.

Right, but that's working on the false assumption that Syria will not be destabilised without Turkish involvement. Turkish-Syrian relations have been very close for many years. At least this way Turkey has a foothold and entitlement to the spoils of war when the imperialists are dividing up their bounty, when it's mission accomplished and regime change has occured and Western-Gulf sponsored Al Qaeda mercenaries are butchering Syrian Christians and other minorities.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So, to you, International law and basic principles of soveriegnity means nothing to you. Glad we cleared that up.

Not at all. If war broke out every time a country's sovereignty was technically "violated" the whole world would be at war right now - but it isn't.

The use of drones for surveillance over this or any similar situation is completely acceptable.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, but that's working on the false assumption that Syria will not be destabilised without Turkish involvement. Turkish-Syrian relations have been very close for many years. At least this way Turkey has a foothold and entitlement to the spoils of war when the imperialists are dividing up their bounty

Turkey will be very much affected by refugees and the economic fall-out from a ruptured Syria, Turkey is also pretty united in its condemnation of the violence in the country.

Spoils of war? dividing up their bounty? hmmm, too many Iraq documentaries I think

Brown Bomber

Originally Posted by Brown Bomber
So, to you, International law and basic principles of soveriegnity means nothing to you. Glad we cleared that up.

(...)

Jonny7 wrote: »

Not at all. If war broke out every time a country's sovereignty was technically "violated" the whole world would be at war right now - but it isn't.

The use of drones for surveillance over this or any similar situation is completely acceptable.

You are contradicting yourself.

Either a) International Law should be respected across the board by all parties or b) It is meaningless and it is not neccessary to respect it

Do you understand this? And where do you stand on the issue?

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Turkey will be very much affected by refugees and the economic fall-out from a ruptured Syria, Turkey is also pretty united in its condemnation of the violence in the country.

Shows how much you know. Turkey's main opposition party is against any kind of Turkish involvement in Syria.

ANKARA – Hürriyet Daily News | 8/8/2011 12:00:00 AM |

Main opposition party leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu called on Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to not push Turkey into a possible military operation against Syria.

Main opposition party leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu called on Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to not push Turkey into a possible military operation against Syria.

“We should take lessons from history. It [Turkey] shouldn’t repeat its mistakes. Let’s take democracy, freedoms to Syria and contribute to Syria to make it a more contemporary country. But we shouldn’t be the pawn of Western sovereign powers,” Kılıçdaroğlu, leader of the Republican People’s Party, or CHP, told the daily Hürriyet in an interview published Monday.

“We shouldn’t get involved in possible military action in Syria,“ he said.

“[Western powers] will force Turkey to actively participate in action toward Syria. If a prime minister [Erdoğan] says that our patience with the situation is running out, the next step is a military operation,” Kılıçdaroğlu said.

“Why would you get involved in military action? Is it because of the Western powers? Foreign policy is based on the interests of the country. Western sovereign powers, today, fight with each other, and tomorrow they shake hands. They are not a neighbor of Syria, but we are. The Syrian people don’t forget betrayal. Turkey should not assume a role in a military operation,” he said.

Kılıçdaroğlu also accused Erdoğan of being a subcontractor of the Western powers in the Middle East.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=turkey-should-stay-out-of-military-action-in-syria-says-chp-chief-2011-08-08

The deputy chairman of the party even went as far as to call it a "plot" conjured up by Western warmongers.

ANKARA – Hürriyet Daily News | 11/3/2011 12:00:00 AM | Hüseyin Hayatsever

A deputy leader of Turkey’s main opposition party has said a 'plot' is being staged in unrest-hit Syria to pave the way for the country’s foreign occupation.

A deputy leader of Turkey’s main opposition party has said a “plot” is being staged in unrest-hit Syria to pave the way for the country’s foreign occupation. She also said the Republican People’s Party (CHP) does not back all practices of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but is against a foreign intervention in Syria.

“The West has written a plot about democracy and liberty, and they are staging it. But this plot of democracy and liberty is nothing but the plot for an invasion,” Birgül Ayman Güler told the Hürriyet Daily News. She said this plan would result in thousands of deaths.

A delegation of female members of the CHP crossed into Syria over the weekend for a five-day visit to observe the situation on the ground along with representatives from the Worker’s Party (İP), Labor Party (EMEP), Turkish Women’s Union, Republican Women’s Association and other women’s groups. They were invited by the General Union of Syrian Women.

The female Turkish delegation visited Aleppo, Latakia and Damascus and met with high-ranking politicians including Vice President of Syria Najah al-Attar, who is the country’s top female politician, Grand Mufti of Syria Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, whose son was shot dead Oct. 3, and Chair of the General Union of Syrian Women Majida Qteit.

Güler said almost every Syrian politician they met had lamented Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s attitude toward the Syrian administration. “We had very good relations with Turkey until six months ago,” Güler quoted al-Attar as saying. “We were discussing removing the borders. We don’t understand why he has this hostile attitude toward us at the moment. He should give up supporting the terrorists.”

The Syrian administration made a distinction between the Syrian opposition demanding reforms and the armed rebels, Güler said. “They told us they understood the opposition who demand more reforms, but they are against armed protesters, whom they called as terrorists.”

In response to Erdoğan’s hailing the “glorious resistance” in Syria, Güler said they never faced a “resistance,” and the daily routine continues in the Syrian cities they visited.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=turkeys-main-opposition-warns-of-8216war-plot8217-against-syria-2011-11-03

Jonny7 wrote: »

Spoils of war? dividing up their bounty? hmmm, too many Iraq documentaries I think

My viewing habits are not relevant.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

(...)


You are contradicting yourself.

Either a) International Law should be respected across the board by all parties or b) It is meaningless and it is not neccessary to respect it

Do you understand this? And where do you stand on the issue?

International law is completely relative. There are many nations which violate each other's airspace constantly, violate each other's waters, even shoot at each other across borders. For instance, Pakistan has "violated" Indian airspace dozens of times in the last years, and that's with military aircraft, not unarmed drones.

It's commonplace. Singled out one event based on the protagonist and calling it an act of war is a wee bit extreme. There isn't as much leeway for the US in here as there is for almost every other nation I've noticed - selective standards hmmm

Suggesting that there is going to be imperialism and the "spoils of war" with Syria is just odd.

and I made no mention of Turkish military intervention.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

International law is completely relative.

Could you please support this preposterous notion with something other than "uhm...well other people do it too.." nonsense.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Singled out one event based on the protagonist and calling it an act of war is a wee bit extreme.

Further nonsense. It is an act of war. There aren't two ways about it. You said yourself it was a "technical violation". Well guess what? That's what laws are - technicalities - and breaches of laws are technical violations. Do you understand yet? You are defending breaking international law.

Jonny7 wrote: »

and There isn't as much leeway for the US in here as there is for almost every other nation I've noticed - selective standards hmmm

Strawman and extremely rich considering your defending the breaking of international law when the victim is a soveriegn state you clearly have no time for.

hooradiation

Unsurprisingly, simply "violating airspace" doesn't meet the modern requirements for Casus belli so it's constant framing as an "act of war" is convenient propaganda and nothing more.

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

Not just air and sea, but satellites (from different nations) consistently "violate" territory across the globe.

If the US, Europe or any power want to put pressure on Assad and monitor what is going on in the country, then I don't see how that negatively affects the situation.

The more pressure on the Syrian leadership the more chance that they will crack. As of late they have been bolstered and emboldened so the violence has intensified.

FFS, how pathetic. Look up the definition of airspace....both controlled and uncotrolled.

Now you're really scraping. You should have no problem with Assad crushing dissent since the US cops crush the Occuppy movement, right?

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

Not at all. If war broke out every time a country's sovereignty was technically "violated" the whole world would be at war right now - but it isn't.

The use of drones for surveillance over this or any similar situation is completely acceptable.

You certainly believe that the law shouldn't have any real definition.

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

Now you're really scraping. You should have no problem with Assad crushing dissent since the US cops crush the Occuppy movement, right?

What are you talking about?

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, simply "violating airspace" doesn't meet the modern requirements for Casus belli so it's constant framing as an "act of war" is convenient propaganda and nothing more.

Your not in a position to speak of "convenient propaganda" with half-truths and spin as above.

Ordering a military vehicle to enter into the legally protected territory of a soveriegn state, against the wishes of the legal government of the soveriegn state for the purposes of espionage is not "simply violating airspace".

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your not in a position to speak of "convenient propaganda" with half-truths and spin as above.

Actually I am.
And don't mistake me for someone who'll allow such obvious attempts at framing the discussion. You'll be sorely disappointed.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ordering a military vehicle to enter into the legally protected territory of a soveriegn state, against the wishes of the legal government of the soveriegn state for the purposes of espionage is not "simply violating airspace".

That's all it is.
If you want to call it an "act of war", you have one of two criteria to satisfy as per the United Nations Charter

A] defending against aggression or
B] the UN as a body has given prior approval to the operation

Now, you might think that espionage would constitute A - but historically this has never been the case.

If you'd like an example simply see the cold war. The US and the USSR spied on each other constantly and with "military vehicles" and yet this never led to any conflicts between the two. Or go further back and the Duquesne Spy Ring before the start of the second world war. A german spy ring operating within the US with an aim to running sabotage yet the discovery and prosecution of the spy ring did not lead to war between the two.
It took an actual act of aggression to start that.


I trust I don't have to explain why claiming such actions are "an act of war" can be beneficial if you're looking to either galvanise support internally or create a narrative of being the victim of a nefarious external villain.

Jaafa

A good article showing how easily people are fooled by the media in regards to Syria.
http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/sandbox/high-tech-trickery-homs

US State Department satellite images of the embattled city were posted on Facebook last Friday by US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who complains: “A terrible and tragic development in Syria is the use of heavy weaponry by the Assad regime against residential neighborhoods.”

The “satellite photos,” says Ford, “have captured both the carnage and those causing it -- the artillery is clearly there, it is clearly bombing entire neighborhoods…We are intent on exposing the regime's brutal tactics for the world to see.”.........But within 24 hours, the blog Moon of Alabama had taken a hammer to the ambassador’s claims. A detailed examination of satellite imagery by the bloggers revealed numerous discrepancies in Washington’s allegations. Mainly, their investigations point to the fact that Ford’s satellite images were “of guns training within military barracks or well known training areas and not in active deployment.”

The US envoy’s questionable claims don’t stop at satellite images, however. In his Facebook post, Ford insists: “There is no evidence that the opposition -- even those opposition members who have defected from the military -- has access to or has employed such heavy weapons. “ By this, he means the “artillery” used “to pound civilian apartment buildings and homes from a distance.”

Now a broadcast by Johnathan king on CNN, reporting on what he claimed was bombing of Baba Amir, an anti-reigme neighborhood, however:

But all three satellite images shown by King are in al-Zahra neighborhood, a pro-regime area consisting mainly of Alawis, who belong to the same Muslim minority sect as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad........That is a stunning revelation. Pro-regime civilians in Homs and other Syrian areas have complained of attacks, kidnappings and killings by armed opposition groups for months now, with little attention received by foreign media.

They go through the pictures in the article so you can see the lies for yourself, please do read through it all carefully.

Brown Bomber

Jaafa wrote: »

A good article showing how easily people are fooled by the media in regards to Syria.
http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/sandbox/high-tech-trickery-homs

Now a broadcast by Johnathan king on CNN, reporting on what he claimed was bombing of Baba Amir, an anti-reigme neighborhood, however:

They go through the pictures in the article so you can see the lies for yourself, please do read through it all carefully.

Thanks for sharing, interesting indeed though not surprising. The anti-Syrian agenda has been apparent since it's outset for anyone who bothered to actually look.

All these lies can only fool 3 types of people at this stage 1) Idiots 2) The Painfully ignorant 3) Those deep in denial and too arrogant to accept that they were fooled.

Jaafa

Some more excellent coverage by Al Akhbar here showing the internal dissatisfaction with Al Jazeera's reporting on Syria. An issue not reported else where. It's a shame politics got involved because AJE was my go to channel, before this.

Earlier in the week, the network’s server had been hacked by the self-styled Syrian Electronic Army, and some of its secrets were released to the media.

The major find to be made public was an email exchange between anchorwoman Rula Ibrahim and Beirut-based reporter Ali Hashem. The emails seemed to indicate widespread disaffection within the channel, especially over its coverage of the crisis in Syria.

Hashem responded sympathetically, saying he had opted to sit on the fence after sending the channel footage of armed men clashing with the army which he had witnessed while reporting from northeastern Lebanon. He said that after he submitted the video, he was told to return to Beirut on the grounds that he was exhausted.

Hashem wondered in response where the channel’s head of news, Ibrahim Hilal, stood in all this. Ibrahim answered that he was “stuck between a rock and a hard place: the agenda and professionalism..."

some Al Jazeera staffers were relieved that the email exchange had been leaked, "because it exposed the station's biased and unprofessional coverage Syria.”

Jaafa

French and US weapons are making their way to the opposition according to Reuters and RT.

http://rt.com/news/syria-arms-us-france-531/

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

All these lies can only fool 3 types of people at this stage 1) Idiots 2) The Painfully ignorant 3) Those deep in denial and too arrogant to accept that they were fooled.

I find it interesting that the idea that this blogger is incorrect in his assessment doesn't register.

Mainly, I am curious why the fact that he's using google maps/earth, which isn't updated in realtime and it's updating of areas is sporadic, as the authoritative version of what the current situation is on the ground.

Not very convincing, honestly.
But then I would say that, wouldn't I?

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

I find it interesting that the idea that this blogger is incorrect in his assessment doesn't register.

Mainly, I am curious why the fact that he's using google maps/earth, which isn't updated in realtime and it's updating of areas is sporadic, as the authoritative version of what the current situation is on the ground.

Not very convincing, honestly.
But then I would say that, wouldn't I?

What are you getting at? Are you oblivious to the one-sided nature pf the reporting on Syria? Were you oblivious to the one-sided nature of the reporting in Libya? Had you not noticed that that the mainstream media generally acted as a propaganda wing for the Libyan rebels? Reporting now debunked lies as fact or likely to be fact?

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What are you getting at?

I was trying to pre-empt the "us and them" nonsense people are so damn fond of around here.
It's tiresome.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you oblivious to the one-sided nature pf the reporting on Syria? Were you oblivious to the one-sided nature of the reporting in Libya? Had you not noticed that that the mainstream media generally acted as a propaganda wing for the Libyan rebels? Reporting now debunked lies as fact or likely to be fact?

I have read this tread again, just to be sure I wasn't missing anything, but you appear to be mistaking "what I believe to be true " with "what is empirically true". The above is your opinion, and nothing more.
It is also an opinion I don't quite share.

I trust I have made myself clear?

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

I was trying to pre-empt the "us and them" nonsense people are so damn fond of around here.
It's tiresome.

As are sweeping generalisations.

hooradiation wrote: »

I have read this tread again, just to be sure I wasn't missing anything, but you appear to be mistaking "what I believe to be true " with "what is empirically true". The above is your opinion, and nothing more.
It is also an opinion I don't quite share.

With the greatest of respect then I shall not waste any more time with you then. Nothing personal, it's just that I can't justify spending time discussing a topic with another when they are blissfully unaware of the obvious but crucial points.

hooradiation wrote: »

I trust I have made myself clear?

Yes father. Won't happen again.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

With the greatest of respect then I shall not waste any more time with you then. Nothing personal, it's just that I can't justify spending time discussing a topic with another when they are blissfully unaware of the obvious but crucial points.

So, unless I have taken away the same conclusion from this thread as you started with, it's a waste of your time discussing it?
Does the phrase "echo chamber" mean anything to you?

Jaafa

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/searching-al-qaeda-lebanon-i-coming-age

An interview with the leader of an Al Qaeda cell operating in Lebanon, he claims to have strong ties with the FSA and other groups in Syria.

The sheikh explains that the “jihadi Islamists” are separate from the FSA, although they work closely together and share common objectives. “There is also the religious connection, in that both belong to the Sunni Muslim sect,” he says, adding, “and they cooperate against a common enemy, the Syrian regime.”He points out that the jihadi Salafis’ control of illicit border crossings between Syria and both Lebanon and Iraq makes it easier for the FSA to employ local smugglers to transport weapons and fighters into the country.

Cooperation this close between the two, means that any funding or arms sent to the FSA by Saudi,Qatar or the US is directly aiding Al Qaeda. It is also a warning of the type of country Syria may become if the rebels are successful.

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

He's the guy that self-immolated.

The Arab Spring wasn't "engineered" by external forces.. unless you think the US has suddenly developed a keen interest in overthrowning the crown Prince in Saudi or the ruling family in Bahrain.

Jesus Christ man! Don't you EVER get it? How can you be so wrong about everything....EVERYTHING ... and continue to open your mouth?

El Baredei, that globalist stooge, has been prying his way into Egyptian politics since 2010. With the help of the US State Department, Google (Wael Ghonim), The April 6 Youth Movement and the National Foundation for Change he has been preparing for these protests since 2008.

Hilary Clinton admitted to funding companies and NGOs in Tunisia, Egypt and beyond, that openly supported the oppositon.

You seem to think that history begins at a specific event in time and you never stop to investigate the long lead-up to that event. For example, you probably think that the Normandy landings were planned long after all of Europe was conquered. Churchill met with Roosevelt in Morocco in 1941 to plan the invasion ...years before.

Are you aware of the workers protests in Sinai 12 full months BEFORE anybody raised their voices in Tahrir Squre? Course you're not. Totally clueless and brainwashed.

Don't know why I bother.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Here's a crazy idea...How about they respect international law and not violate the airspace of a sovereign nation?

Carrying this argument through to it's logical conclusion though, you are happy that nobody intervened to prevent the Rwandan genocide?

Jaafa

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Carrying this argument through to it's logical conclusion though, you are happy that nobody intervened to prevent the Rwandan genocide?

Christ man this is hardly comparable to Rwanda. Get some perspective.

Monty Burnz

Jaafa wrote: »

Christ man this is hardly comparable to Rwanda. Get some perspective.

Take a chill pill. What is your position on the question? Sovereign countries and international law are sacrosanct? Or not?

Jaafa

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Take a chill pill. What is your position on the question? Sovereign countries and international law are sacrosanct? Or not?

No thanks I don't do drugs.

I'm against any foreign intervention in Syria, although it's already happening.