SYRIA WAR MEGATHREAD - Mod Note First Post

nacho libre

www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/obama-ciatrained-rebel-unit-to-join-fighting-against-regime-29548761.html

zom

Hagar the Nice. wrote: »

“If Israel chose to act so totally irresponsibly, the United States should have at least used the hotline between Washington and the Kremlin to warn Moscow of such tests despite the current coldness in the relations between the two countries,” Korotchenko added. “It is not clear whether the Kremlin was informed in advance.”

These guys are serious and with respect to all civilian victims, this is what the game is all about. If they can rocket bomb Syria today, and nobody stop them, in 2014 they would bomb an Iran and in few years - who knows - Russia??

Hagar the Nice.

zom wrote: »

These guys are serious and with respect to all civilian victims, this is what the game is all about. If they can rocket bomb Syria today, and nobody stop them, in 2014 they would bomb an Iran and in few years - who knows - Russia??

Sadly I think you may well be correct,I suspect their close neighbours know it too.

Seaneh

Israel will not attack Iran beyond a token attack on reactor facilities, they know that attacking Iran opens two fronts on their door step and puts all of Israel under fire from Hezbollah who's 60,000+ rockets have the range to hit every major population centre in Israel, they would also be stirring up Hamas again, who are supplied almost exclusively by Iran via Hezbollah. On top of that there is the medium range missles Iran have stockpiled which would be well capable of hitting Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem AND the Iranian airforce who have the range and firepower to blanket bomb most of Israel.

Attacking Iran = starting a war and Israel don't want none of that.

donegal_road

John McCain caught playing poker on iPhone during the senates Syria hearing


* in fairness to him, I can see his point... the senate hearing is only a formality anyway, the weapons manufacturers and oil companies have already decided that the US are going in.

Amerika

donegal_road wrote: »

John McCain caught playing poker on iPhone during the senates Syria hearing


* in fairness to him, I can see his point... the senate hearing is only a formality anyway, the weapons manufacturers and oil companies have already decided that the US are going in.

You forgot the bogeyman. You can't ignore the lobbying efforts and influence the bogeyman plays on US foreign policy.

:pac:

Jonny7

donegal_road wrote: »

This exclusive documentary by Russian TV station, Rossiya 24, is a "must watch" as it gives a very good insight into the events that have been taking place in Syria since 2011. It shows how both the Syrian Army and the Syrian people are defending their country Syria from unimaginable crimes committed by extremist terrorists who operate with massive international media, military, intelligence, and financial support,

Because if there's anyone we can trust in this conflict, it's definitely the Russian government.

Jonny7

Hoop66 wrote: »

I've been trying to verify this report. Not seeing much that isn't linked to websites that are, shall we say, not completely agenda-free (Infowars.com being the biggest offender here).

Anyone any more reliable/respectable links?

The Britam email was shown to be a fake, and the Daily Mail had to pay out compensation.

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Because if there's anyone we can trust in this conflict, it's definitely the Russian government.

As opposed to the US government. Iraq has WMD's....ooops our bad.

Jonny7

Hagar the Nice. wrote: »

And then we have this,dear God why am I not in the least bit surprised.

. By Russell Findlay  |  1 Sep 2013 07:21
BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.

Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.

*Spits out my dihydrogen monoxide

Sounds like "Brits sell Syrians toothpaste" isn't a very interesting headline.

Hagar the Nice.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Because if there's anyone we can trust in this conflict, it's definitely the Russian government.

Yep,as the Chechens will also trust the old Ruskies.

donegal_road

what did you think of the documentary jonny?

Jonny7

donegal_road wrote: »

what did you think of the documentary jonny?

Great, much classier than those North Korean ones!

The acting was a little off though.

donegal_road

Jonny, back in post 180 or so, I posted this video clip of General Clark's remarkable interview on Democracy Now channel...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxWtq3rw-fw

Your reply went completely over my head.. I wonder could you elaborate please.

Jonny7

donegal_road wrote: »

Jonny, back in post 180 or so, I posted this video clip of General Clark's remarkable interview on Democracy Now channel...

Your reply went completely over my head.. I wonder could you elaborate please.

George's W's administration was particularly hawkish, characters such as Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, later Bolton and so on couldn't exactly be described as doves also it wasn't exactly the best tenure for something like 911 to happen on. The first Gulf war was essentially seen as a victory for Saddam because the US was so paranoid of a repeat of Vietnam, that they didn't pursue Saddam after the invasion of Kuwait and essentially left him and his Republican Guard intact who subsequently went on to brutally crush the Shia uprising and terrorise the Kurds.

Saddam was then a thorn in the side of the US, in the side of the region, a challenge to Israeli dominance (and Iranian ironically) and to top it off he was a pretty brutal dictator. 911 was the perfect stage for the hawkish "neoconservatives" to enact some rather badly thought out plans to democratise Iraq using a very controversial technique, pre-emptive force, it was, as we all know a rushed botch-job which fell at the first hurdle. If it had magically been a success, then I have no doubt the administration would have turned it's attention to other pariah states (hence the long term plan mentioning such countries)

Obviously that was a different administration

Wesley Clark supports Obama's proposed punitive strikes on Assad's military (He compares them to Clinton's tomahawk strikes on Saddam in 93)

"But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."

and Clark himself was obviously supportive and instrumental in the intervention in former Yugoslavia.

MonaPizza

SO...........

Are we going to see any evidence that Assad's forces deployed chemical weapons or are we not?

I read a pathetic document that stated "we are sure, short of confirmation" that the Assad regime launched these attacks."

In (English) other words you have no confirmation.
This episode is as embarrassingly laughable as that infantile stunt whereby CNN and the morons in the Pentagon, Whitehall, Washington and a few more mental midgets on Wolf Blitzer's (cretinous) "Situation Room" tried to bluff us that crates of guns and other materiel found in Iraq were from Iran. The printing on the crates was in English, not in Farsi, but in English.

That would be like the Russians claiming to detect a load of Japanese crates of grenades at the Polish border...filming the sh1t and the "alleged" chinese crates having "Made in China" but written in Polish on the side....just for the fcuking cameras.

Who believes these amateurs in Washington anymore?

MonaPizza

donegal_road wrote: »

John McCain caught playing poker on iPhone during the senates Syria hearing


* in fairness to him, I can see his point... the senate hearing is only a formality anyway, the weapons manufacturers and oil companies have already decided that the US are going in.

And this arsehole is qualified to run for office, let alone for presidency?
This utter clown, with his "Joe the Plumber" bullcrap and his audacity to yap about "family values, loyalty and honour" as he dumped his wife because she became crippled from an accident and went on to call his new trophy wife a c**t in public because she made a joke about him balding.

Oh,....and when asked how many houses he owns he couldn't remember.
Now this sleazy wanker who thinks it's cutesy to sing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, .. bomb Iran" ala the Beach Boys, is someone to be taken seriously rather than slapped with a stocking full of wet faeces and sent away.

sin_city

At least this debate is taking place. John Kerry was sitting with his wife having dinner with Assad and his wife,

Now Assad is a tyrant.

Saddam Hussein was shaking hands with Rumsfeld in the 80s and we all heard how he was a tyrant later.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/pictures-emerge-showing-us-secretary-john-kerry-and-president-assad-dining-in-syria-together-8796846.html


Don't be naive. They might have got you on Iraq but as Bush himself said:

Karl Stein

Jonny7 wrote: »

George's W's administration was particularly hawkish, characters such as Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, later Bolton and so on couldn't exactly be described as doves also it wasn't exactly the best tenure for something like 911 to happen on.

I believe the preferred term is 'Chickenhawk' or as General Tommy Franks described one of the architects of neocon wars, Douglas Feith, 'The dumbest ****ing guy on the planet'.

the US was so paranoid of a repeat of Vietnam, that they didn't pursue Saddam after the invasion of Kuwait

That's the US propaganda version. Saddam was very deliberately left in power in Iraq by the US and allies. He served two purposes.

1. He crushed the the Shiite uprising which the west was happy with seeing as they were obsessed with the influence of Iran and preferred having an 'iron fisted' scumbag controlling the country (so much for democracy and human rights). George Bush Snr admitted this in his book "The Worlds Transformed".

The FT observes: 'Washington's calculation is that a break-up of Iraq would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Middle East, especially if it led to the creation of an independent Kurdistan. Turkey, a steadfast US ally with a large Kurd minority, would be destabilised. Iran could exploit the vacuum.' (1 Feb. 2002, Supplement, p. III.) Saudi Arabia has no wish to see a vibrant democracy on its border. Thus the need for 'an iron-fisted Iraqi junta'.

http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing039.htm

2. Arms sales. Having a nutter with scud missiles, tanks, and a penchant for invading other states is great for arms sales to countries with big oil reserves, and big oil revenues, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

the US [...] became the prime supplier to the [Middle East] region after the 1991 Persian Gulf crisis

globalissues.org/arms-trade-is-big-business

MonaPizza

How many will America take?

How many will Ireland take?

How many will Sweden take:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36102.htm

Jonny7

Charlie Rock wrote: »

That's the US propaganda version. Saddam was very deliberately left in power in Iraq by the US and allies. He served two purposes.

They didn't "leave him in power", they just didn't dare make the push on Baghdad, like I said, they were highly paranoid of entering into any situation that would resemble Vietnam - after a month or so of aerial bombing, the ground battle just took 4 days.

1. He crushed the the Shiite uprising which the west was happy with

They generally presumed Saddam would be overthrown, Bush senior vocally encouraged the uprising, the yanks broadcast messages on Iraqi radio and so on, I remember watching it on TV, most commentators thought Saddam would easily fall, instead thousands upon thousands died, the suppression was swift and brutal and we got TV pictures of millions of Kurds on the move fleeing aerial assault (hence the no-fly zone)

2. Arms sales. Having a nutter with scud missiles, tanks, and a penchant for invading other states is great for arms sales to countries with big oil reserves, and big oil revenues, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

True Kuwait and Saudi have been great for arms sales, but seems just like convenient narrative spun around the event rather than actual policy.

force eleven

You know its war, when the likes of Kissinger and Rumsfeld are quoted in the media. Its a bad business folks, with unforeseen consequences. The Syrian army could gamble and ride out the strikes and go on as before, but they are gambling that the US doesn't get all confident and begin to degrade the whole infrastructure of government, despite what Obama outwardly says.

This is no quick in and out job by any means.

donegal_road

@Jonny, thanks for clearing that up... you seem to be better informed than General Clark himself.

You are still not convincing me that America's actions in the Middle East is nothing but a blatant grab for oil. Clark even says it himself in the clip.

I will grant you this, that Russian documentary may not be the best documentary ever made, but for me.. it does confirm one thing..... the so-called Syrian rebels are little but a bunch of hired thugs from outside the country who are taking their orders from people in Saudi Arabia and Qatar (whoever they may be). Many of them are off their heads on drugs, and they are being paid in cash, to carry out the most heinous acts of barbarity on the people of Syria.

We all saw the beheading of the two catholic priests and a bishop on youtube, carried out by these 'rebels'.

Many of us have seen the video of the so called rebel leader as he pretends to eat the heart and liver of a dead Syrian.. he himself claims not to have remembered any of his actions in an interview with the BBC.

With the announcement yesterday, that America will commence a bombing campaign against Syria, it is worth bearing this in mind:

Estimated amount that USA will spend dropping bombs on Syria: $60,000,000

Estimated amount of US citizens in the USA who will die in the next week due to lack of food and shelter.... 2,000

The last country to use chemical weapons in War: Isreal (USA Sponsored)

USA's reason for dropping bombs on Syria : to prevent the deaths of civilians and to implement the rule against the use of chemical weapons.


Proud of the USA Jonny?










.

Jonny7

donegal_road wrote: »

You are still not convincing me that America's actions in the Middle East is nothing but a blatant grab for oil. Clark even says it himself in the clip.

Prob very long term plans, but in the short term any "action" in the Middle East typically involves a spike in oil prices.

Not sure what "grab for oil" involves, like seizing oil fields? doesn't happen that way, in Iraq, the Chinese won most of the contracts - and Iraq still receives the profits.

It does confirm one thing..... the so-called Syrian rebels are little but a bunch of hired thugs from outside the country who are taking their orders from people in Saudi Arabia and Qatar (whoever they may be). Many of them are off their heads on drugs, and they are being paid in cash, to carry out the most heinous acts of barbarity on the people of Syria.

Nah the rebels are main Syrians (FSA), there are however plenty of foreign jihadists there as confirmed by virtually everyone, including Kerry

Likewise foreign jihadists turned up in Iraq (and more recently Libya) At one point the Sunni insurgents actually allied themselves with US forces to root out the jihadists.

Many of us have seen the video of the so called rebel leader as he pretends to eat the heart and liver of a dead Syrian.. he himself claims not to have remembered any of his actions in an interview with the BBC.

Here's his side of the story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23190533

USA's reason for dropping bombs on Syria : to prevent the deaths of civilians and to implement the rule against the use of chemical weapons.

Punitive strikes against chemical weapon use. It would be a lot easier for the US just to turn a blind eye to the situation and let Assad get on with it.
Here's an overview for what has turned into a very complex situation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

donegal_road

@Jonny

Considering that Israel was the last country to use chemical weapons in combat, why the double standard?

Considering that the Egyptian army shot dead 980 civilians in cold blood, during protests three weeks ago, why was there a blind eye turned towards this atrocity?





.

Hande hoche!

W. G. Grace wrote: »

http://www.upworthy.com/alyssa-milano-made-a-sex-tape-and-its-really-important-that-you-watch-it-im-not-joking-3?c=ufb1

What do people make of this spin? Not safe for some work places but no sex in it...seems like a propaganda effort

Alyssa Milano's chest: Good
Overtly simplistic analysis of situation: Bad.

Amirani

MonaPizza wrote: »

How many will America take?

How many will Ireland take?

How many will Sweden take:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36102.htm

I'd be very supportive of Ireland offering at least temporary asylum to any Syrian who applies, fair play to Sweden on this.

If the US really cared about civilians here they'd be paying more attention to help setting up safe havens in neighbouring countries and within it's own borders rather than looking for reasons to play around with its latest weapons.

donegal_road

NiallSparky wrote: »

I'd be very supportive of Ireland offering at least temporary asylum to any Syrian who applies, fair play to Sweden on this.

If the US really cared about civilians here they'd be paying more attention to help setting up safe havens in neighbouring countries and within it's own borders rather than looking for reasons to play around with its latest weapons.

their not even looking after their own citizens at home.

czx

donegal_road wrote: »

their not even looking after their own citizens at home.

which is all you really care about

Jonny7

NiallSparky wrote: »

If the US really cared about civilians here they'd be paying more attention to help setting up safe havens in neighbouring countries and within it's own borders rather than looking for reasons to play around with its latest weapons.

They are, Europe and the US are the biggest contributors, the US has spent over 800 million dollars toward the Syrian refugee crisis in just the last year alone. Russia and China have done virtually nothing.