Finally! The truth is coming out about Syria

bazmac1981

Been trying to figure out for a while now why the West would arm fundamental Islamists in Syria to fight Assad's regime in Syria.
I believe now that the West is operating a divide and conquer operation in the Middle East in preparation for an American (West) sponsored pre emptive strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities by Israel.
That way there can't be a coherent Arab response to this act of aggression, as well as blocking the quickest geographical route for Iran to retaliate on Israel.
Maybe this has been stated already, but I'm getting into this thread late in the game.

Norwesterner

bazmac1981 wrote: »

Been trying to figure out for a while now why the West would arm fundamental Islamists in Syria to fight Assad's regime in Syria.
I believe now that the West is operating a divide and conquer operation in the Middle East in preparation for an American (West) sponsored pre emptive strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities by Israel.
That way there can't be a coherent Arab response to this act of aggression, as well as blocking the quickest geographical route for Iran to retaliate on Israel.
Maybe this has been stated already, but I'm getting into this thread late in the game.

Syria is an ally of Iran.
Before Israel attacks Iran, they must first isolate and weaken it and pick off the allies.

cyberhog

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I note the lack of rants about Russian imperialism from the anti-Imperialists.

You can relax Duggys Housemate. Russia has given up its imperial ways.

The Russian Empire Is Gone for Good

By Dmitri Trenin | Monday, May 07, 2012


In the 20 years between the Soviet Union's collapse and the beginning of Vladimir Putin's third presidential term, there has been no serious attempt by Russia's leaders to reconstitute the Soviet empire. Instead, writes Dmitri Trenin in "Post-Imperium," where the Soviet Union used to look for opportunities to draw countries into its ideological orbit, today's Russia is on the lookout for opportunities to make money.

The Russian empire is over, never to return. The enterprise that had lasted for hundreds of years simply lost the drive. The élan is gone. In the two decades since the collapse, imperial restoration was never considered seriously by Russia's leaders, nor demanded by the wider public.

Rather, Russia has gone in reverse — expansion has yielded to introspection, and grandiose public schemes have made their way to myriad private agendas. This is a Russia the world has not known before the start of the 21st century.

http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9576

Duggys Housemate

cyberhog wrote: »

You can relax Duggys Housemate. Russia has given up its imperial ways.



http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9576

Ah. That's proof then - one story in a website. Arming Assad is imperialism. Russia also claims "interests" in its "near abroad" and areas where it has colonised with Russians. It also opposes Poland getting a defence capability. Poland is therefore Finlandised.

I would prefer Assad stayed because instability is worse than anything else. However , where is the same concern for the victims of Assad as the victims of Israel. Where the protests? Where are the boats?

cyberhog

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

. Arming Assad is imperialism.

Rubbish. Russia is helping an ally defend itself from hordes of terrorists and Western backed jihadists who are wreaking havoc throughout the country.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I would prefer Assad stayed because instability is worse than anything else.

Then you should be thanking Russia! because without Russia's support Assad would have had a knife up the ass long ago.

riffmongous

cyberhog wrote: »

You can relax Duggys Housemate. Russia has given up its imperial ways.



http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9576

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

kalych

riffmongous wrote: »

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

Possibly something else entirely? One was about the control over heroin trafficking coming from Afghanistan into Chechnya then beyond to Europe, which was so large that it was enough to sponsor a small army of jihadists from all over the Middle East and also enough to buy up all the local police forces who just turned into mercs and the other was over Georgians invading territories they did not control, who cares there were what Russians called "peacekeepers" there.

Notice i put "peacekeepers" in semi-columns since it is basically an occupied territory, tis still Georgians that started the conflict, since Assetia has been under Russian control since the collapse of USSR. Now we can argue that resurgence and disproportionate response by Russia could be a sign of whatever, including this illusive imperialism people keep mentioning. But it's not like they started either of these conflicts.

Cork boy 55

cyberhog wrote: »

I see now that the rebels are losing on all fronts the Western media has quit lying about them being unified in any meaningful way.

The Rebels are not losing on all fronts this is clearly and demonstrably false
Shall we go through each Governate?
The government is not even on the offensive in a majority of them.

Right so the Western Media which consists of several thousand
newspapers, radio, TV stations on-line media sites
spread across across of dozens of countries where all lying and then when the rebels started losing(which they are not) they all started telling the truth?

riffmongous

kalych wrote: »

Possibly something else entirely? One was about the control over heroin trafficking coming from Afghanistan into Chechnya then beyond to Europe, which was so large that it was enough to sponsor a small army of jihadists from all over the Middle East and also enough to buy up all the local police forces who just turned into mercs

I wouldn't agree with that description of the Chechen wars at all, you just totally ignored the Chechen independence attempts.

kalych

riffmongous wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with that description of the Chechen wars at all, you just totally ignored the Chechen independence attempts.

You are possibly right. If you believe these attempts had anything to do with independence. I mean what is happening in Syria is a war for independence from Assad or just a means to get others in power? seems to me like the latter.

On behalf of Saudi Arabia and Israel weakening the only real ally of Iran. Kinda the same thing happened in Chechnya. Some people were making a lot of cash and paid of others to start the "independence" war. The same as the endless guerrilla conflicts in Columbia. The Russians just eventually handled theirs better by throwing more cash at the insurgents than the Afgani - based drug traffickers. Hence the Anji football club and all the newly acquired wealth in the region that during its "independence" under Dudaev after the first Chechen conflict didn't even run schools other than religious classes, since independent Chechnya apparently did not need education even at primary level. Read up on this "independence", it really is a fascinating thing.

Norwesterner

Syrians have as much to a right to a War on terror as America.
They have the right to defend themselves against Al Qaeda as any other nation.
And if the Zionists in Israel are launching regular unprovoked attacks, they have the right to retaliate likewise.
If Syria launch an attack on Israel, only Israel is to blame.

Norwesterner

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The Rebels are not losing on all fronts this is clearly and demonstrably false
Shall we go through each Governate?
The government is not even on the offensive in a majority of them.

Right so the Western Media which consists of several thousand
newspapers, radio, TV stations on-line media sites
spread across across of dozens of countries where all lying and then when the rebels started losing(which they are not) they all started telling the truth?

Aren't you the boyo who was telling us in December tht Damascus was surrounded, the FSA was marching on the International Airport, and Assad was on a Russian ship?
The FSA/Al qaeda have zero chance of winning this war. They are despised by the Syrian majority. Al Qasayr will be returned to the tens of thousands of Christians expelled last year.Thanks to the SAA and Hezbllah.

hfallada

Why do people think democracy equals higher standard of living for everyone in the middle east. Egypt is democratic now and the economy is falling apart. Iran which was once a liberal country ( none of the Shia laws that are in place now are practised). Some places can't handle over night democracy.

But would these countries be better democratic? Libya has a better health care than america. Saudi Arabia is now being liberal. It only takes one democratically elected extremeist to make life hell for millions of people like in Iran

Norwesterner

hfallada wrote: »

Why do people think democracy equals higher standard of living for everyone in the middle east. Egypt is democratic now and the economy is falling apart. Iran which was once a liberal country ( none of the Shia laws that are in place now are practised). Some places can't handle over night democracy.

But would these countries be better democratic? Libya has a better health care than america. Saudi Arabia is now being liberal. It only takes one democratically elected extremeist to make life hell for millions of people like in Iran

"Egypt is democratic now". HUH?
"Libya has a better health care than america" HUH?
"Saudi Arabia is now being liberal" HUH?
"Iran was once a liberal country" HUH?

Jonny7

Al Qaeda and other extremist elements were drawn to the Syrian conflict after time. Much like these groups were not present in Iraq but were drawn to the conflict with various goals and aims.

As far as I am aware virtually every leader in every country affected by genuine protests in the Middle East and North Africa have blamed or implicated "terrorists" as the cause of the uprising, diverting from the real reasons.

AlekSmart

hfallada wrote: »

Why do people think democracy equals higher standard of living for everyone in the middle east. Egypt is democratic now and the economy is falling apart. Iran which was once a liberal country ( none of the Shia laws that are in place now are practised). Some places can't handle over night democracy.

But would these countries be better democratic? Libya has a better health care than america. Saudi Arabia is now being liberal. It only takes one democratically elected extremeist to make life hell for millions of people like in Iran

One other issue may be,that the systems and traditions of what we Westerners term "Democracy",may not even be comprehended,let alone valued or desired,by members of tribal communities living in some of the harshest conditions on the Planet.

I was roundly derided for pointing to Col Gadaffi's substantial contribution to Libya's people,in the form of Water.

Nonsense,I was told...these people want democracy and freedom ahead of water.

All perfectly valid I'll venture, in our home environment,however ask somebody living here,and you may well get a slightly different set of principles in play..?

http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/where-is-the-hottest-place-on-earth

riffmongous

AlekSmart wrote: »

One other issue may be,that the systems and traditions of what we Westerners term "Democracy",may not even be comprehended,let alone valued or desired,by members of tribal communities living in some of the harshest conditions on the Planet.

I was roundly derided for pointing to Col Gadaffi's substantial contribution to Libya's people,in the form of Water.

Nonsense,I was told...these people want democracy and freedom ahead of water.

All perfectly valid I'll venture, in our home environment,however ask somebody living here,and you may well get a slightly different set of principles in play..?

http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/where-is-the-hottest-place-on-earth

Another problem in my opinion is that most of the middle east is too heterogeneous as a result of the poorly constructed borders and territories from the imperial times for democracy to be effective, when you have so many different ethnic and religious groups someone is always going to be marginalised by democracy.

In Europe we've spent the last few centuries smoothing out the heterogeneity through constant wars and have only very recently started to arrive at being able to solve these problems peacefully.

Norwesterner

Jonny7 wrote: »

Al Qaeda and other extremist elements were drawn to the Syrian conflict after time. Much like these groups were not present in Iraq but were drawn to the conflict with various goals and aims.

As far as I am aware virtually every leader in every country affected by genuine protests in the Middle East and North Africa have blamed or implicated "terrorists" as the cause of the uprising, diverting from the real reasons.

You are aware Islamic groups, linked to the Muslim Brotherhood have been setting off car bombs and attacking the Syrian military since the early 80s.
It had nothing to do with democracy then, nor does it now.
They want an Islamic Caliphate and Sharia Law.
The majority of Syrians do not.

Seaneh

Norwesterner wrote: »

"Egypt is democratic now". HUH?
"Libya has a better health care than america" HUH?
"Saudi Arabia is now being liberal" HUH?
"Iran was once a liberal country" HUH?

In fairness, Iran was a liberal democracy, then the US and UK funded a coup to depose Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 and installed the Shah who did such a great running the country that the Islamic Revolution happened.

And well, you know the rest.

Jonny7

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

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

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

Norwesterner

Jonny7 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Jonny7

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

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

Eggy Baby!

riffmongous wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

It went from this:


To this:


May I ask how Iraq is doing?

Norwesterner

Jonny7 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

cyberhog

German intel now believes Assad regaining hold in Syria

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


...

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


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

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

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

halkar

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

Jonny7

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

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

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

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

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

Norwesterner

Jonny7 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norwesterner

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

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

Seaneh

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

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

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