Thoughts on the situation in Syria?

[Nightside]

Maybe they will let me back in the army and I can have a decent job again...

 

[TheDeathOfMusic]

Surely I can't be the only one hoping for a nuclear holocaust so we can just ....ing start over?

 

[vansinn]

I see a lot of people swearing that it was the FSA/rebels who used the chemical weapons. Question for you, why were none of Assad's troops killed in these attacks and only civilians?

Because this would be an outright declaration of war.
Civilian casualties are merely collateral damage.
Moreover, civilian casualties, and especially children, weights in a lot better when displayed on mainstream media.

Note how some of the videos of this latest attack, released on youtube several hours before the attack was claimed to have taken place, shows a white puffy "poison" cloud? Those types of gas are colorless and (at least nearly) invisible. However, the white cloud makes for a good photo shoot for the gazing audience.

It all stinks. Why on earth would Assad stage a chemical attack just 15 Km from where the UN inspectors are already situated - and with his full acknowledgement?
It's been said by many observers that whatever someone might think of him, he's most certainly not stupid.

And notice how the UN inspectors are only mandated to look for evidence pertaining to if chemical attacks took place, not by whom - the later was vetoed..
Anything else than finding out both set of truths is completely rectal, and simply shows how corrupt and staged this whole shebang has been implemented.

Even considering the complexity of the whole middle eastern situation, and as such, the Syrian one, what's going on in general terms is as transparent as a barely eighteen in a wet T-shirt competition.
I'd say a few decently bright high school student having taken part in school plays could've written a decently better screen play.

EDIT: Just checked the latest reports off the alternative media:
http://presstv.com/detail/2013/08/31/321478/obama-decides-us-should-attack-syria/

Note how Obama says we'll bomb even without a UN mandate..

Then followed http://presstv.com/detail/2013/09/01/321538/obama-postpones-wwiii-till-next-week/
And here's probably why: http://presstv.com/detail/2013/08/30/321260/syria-militants-use-saudisupplied-gas/

The House of Saud and the UAE are big time sponsors of what's going on, and much of this involves age-old hatred between sunni and shiite muslim fractions, with those farther-east Arab regions being predominantly sunnis, and a good part of the troubled-in-question region, including Iran, mostly Shiites.

 

[necronile]

I can pretty much relate to this.

I'm not going to add too many of my views on the discussion about what's going on in Syria.
However, I do find the following short list of info and articles very interesting and useful:

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.pdf

Pepe Escobar: Asia Times Online :: Obama set for holy Tomahawk war

Pepe Escobar: Asia Times Online :: Operation Tomahawk with cheese

Toni Gosling: From 'Free' West to fascist fire-starters in 60 yrs: Where did we go so wrong? ? RT Op-Edge

Spengler: Asia Times Online :: World learns to manage without the US

While some of those do touch on the US, note how other countries/regions are referred, and how especially Gosling and Spengler discuss failed policies.


The way I read the geo-political situation, America has, along with other countries, simply fallen victim to how the huge international, or predominantly western, banking elite, to a fair degree in association with the military complexes in various countries, wants to arrange our world.

Do note how aggressive Cameron (and Haque) have been driving for British participation in a Syria intervention.
Hollande (of France) is perhaps mostly in it due to France' interests in Africa, and for the arms sales.

My readings seems to reveal that Syria isn't about whether or not Assad did use WMD's; rather, it's about Isreal's, or rather the Zionist's, projection for the region.

Syria is wanted broken up into 3-4 enclaves:
The northern part, along with a part of Iraq, to be a new Kurdish enclave (so Erdogain gets rid of this issue).
The rest split between Shia's and Shiite's and another I fail to remember.

Of course there's the problem with the pipeline between Iran, Libya and Syria, which is not wanted.

And the western banking elite cannot deal with an Arab/muslim region the sees bank interests as an abomination.
What the IMF is essentially doing to the wast is creating a modern form of slavery: Financial slavery.
Such schemes cannot be implemented in the Middle East, the way they look at interests.

For a more in-depth understanding on Syrian internals, click into Syrian Girl's utube channel: SyrianGirlpartisan's channel - YouTube
Her family was part of the government, so she has a lot of inside info, as seen from, well.. a Syrian's point of view.

Entered first page,saw ''Association of Arab-American University''
closed it.
I assume this document is pretty biased...

 

[Quitty]

Entered first page,saw ''Association of Arab-American University''
closed it.
I assume this document is pretty biased...

Biased?! Heavens, no!

It's just that annoying Zionist, umm, projection.
For the region.

Yeah.

 

[Ckackley]

The Middle East has been in a constant state of war for thousands of years. Anyone in the West who thinks they can change that in ANY way at this point is crazy. All we've done is make things worse. All the way back to the Crusades. We had bored Knights rampaging Europe out of boredom so the church creates a Holy War to give them something to do. All of this time later we're still stuck in a Christian -vs- Muslim mind set.
Western powers have set up arbitrary country borders, splitting tribes and taking ancestral lands away from people. The creation of Israel was important, but slipping it smack in the middle of a continent at war to gain a political/military advantage was insane.
I despise war, but the only way to solve the problems is to carpet bomb the entire region into a parking lot, set up solar panels and produce enough electricity to fuel the world. That's not fair, and it's also not going to happen. The other option is for all the other countries to GTFO and take care of themselves for a while. Let the people that live there figure things out and make their own choices the same way all of the western powers did. It's not up to the U.S. to decide how the world should be run. We're one of the youngest countries on the planet. We've been around as a country for a blink of an eye historically speaking. Who the hell are we to tell other countries what to do?
As far as chemical weapons ? We spread Agent Orange all over Vietnam and no one stepped in to stop us. Rumors abound that we used various chemical ballistic weapons in Iraq. So it's alright for us , but not for anyone else ? I love my country, but we are a bunch of self righteous pricks.

 

[Murmel]

^
White phosphorus seems to have been used on several occasions by both the "good" and the "bad" guys. I honestly had no idea about this, but I guess when the "good" guys use CW it doesn't attract as much attention.

White phosphorus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though I don't quite understand if it's illegal or not.

 

[tedtan]

As far as chemical weapons ? We spread Agent Orange all over Vietnam and no one stepped in to stop us.

Yes, but agent orange is not a chemical weapon in the same way that mustard gas or sarin is, it is an herbicide/defoliant used to clear jungle vegetation so we could build air strips, military bases, move equipment, etc. While it causes problems for those exposed to it, human contact with agent orange was unintentional, much like the civilian casualties that accompany war. It wasn't deployed as a chemical weapon against people.

Rumors abound that we used various chemical ballistic weapons in Iraq. So it's alright for us , but not for anyone else ? I love my country, but we are a bunch of self righteous pricks.

I would advise caution here. I've heard rumors that Jesus will return on such and such date to reclaim the world that didn't come true, rumors that Satan will rule the earth, rumors that our politicians are aliens from a planet near Alpha Centauri, etc. I don't have the facts to prove them, so I don't buy into them. I would advise you to do likewise with rumors of US chemical attacks until we have the facts necessary to prove such rumors true. At that point, feel free to fire away, but not until then.

 

[estabon37]

I'm surprised at the amount of assumptions of near-world-war being thrown around here, especially considering most opinionated nations are saying they'll stay out of it, or do what they can to prevent it. And for those still wondering why the French joined the 'let's get in there team', it might be that they enjoyed their stay from 1923-1946, and wouldn't mind heading over there to see what the 'new guys' have done with the place.

The BBC has a Syrian Overview page on its website which has reminded me of a few things that I'd forgotten about the last few years, including how this particular civil war started.

From the BBC page:
In 2011-12 security forces used tanks, gunfire and mass arrests to try to crush anti-government street protests inspired by the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. These protests rapidly took on a more formal nature when the opposition began to organise political and military wings for a long uprising against the Baath government. As 2012 wore on, the stand-off escalated into civil war, with defections from the governing elite signalling the steady collapse of central authority.


International isolation:

On the world stage Syria became increasingly isolated in recent years, coming under fire for its support for insurgents in Iraq and over its role in Lebanon.
That isolation showed brief signs of easing after efforts by France to bring Syria back into the international fold in 2008, but Syria's violation of a UN ban on arming the Lebanese Hezbollah militia led to the extension of US sanctions in May 2010.
Further international sanctions were imposed amid the bloody repression of protests in the descent into civil war. By December 2012 the US, Turkey, Gulf states, France and Britain had recognised the main opposition National Coalition of the Syrian Revolution as the "sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people", signalling their belief that the Assad government is beyond redemption.
The rise of the Al-Nusra front, a radical Islamist militia allied to al-Qaeda, in rebel ranks led to a marked cooling of international and regional support for the opposition in mid-2013, and allowed the government and its Hezbollah allies to launch a counter-offensive.
The Assad governments have been among the most intransigent opponents of peace with Israel, and have supported several anti-Israel armed groups - most notably Hezbollah and the Gaza-based Palestinian group Hamas. Hopes for reconciliation have repeatedly foundered over Syria's support for these groups and the vexed question of the Golan Heights.

I realise the BBC isn't as credible a source as Alex Jones' Infowars, but it's broken a story or two in its time and I'm willing to trust it just this once.

Based on that little write-up there, the two major sides that now seem to be fighting in Syria are the military of a government that reacted violently to Arab Sping-style protests, and the members of a radical militia tied to al-Qaeda who are recruiting and using civilians as troops. Why people outside Syria are taking sides ideologically is a bit beyond me, as it almost looks like one side is Stormtroopers from Star Wars and the other Orcs from Lord of the Rings. The only 'good guys' are the civilians, and as we've seen in the last ten years of war (or three thousand years, whatever) is that bringing more armies to the table doesn't decelerate casualites.

Just a quick, pedantic note to Ckackley:

It's not up to the U.S. to decide how the world should be run. We're one of the youngest countries on the planet. We've been around as a country for a blink of an eye historically speaking.

One of the youngest cultures, sure. But many borders have been re-arranged since WWII, and so many systems of government toppled in so many countries, that the US is actually one of the oldest these days. Hell, Australia's one of the oldest now, and it's only been a federation since 1901. That BBC article specifically mentions the way the Ottoman empire was divided up after WWII, and how Syria fit into that picture. It's easy to say that the Middle East has been at war for thousands of years, but such a statement suggests there were't many years of stability for many regions for long periods of time. If we're generalising that much, then 'Europe' was at war for thousands of years, a situation that has been on hold since WWII, a mere 70 years ago. Most of us consider war in Europe between Europeans to be over, so why can't this happen in the Middle East?

 

[synrgy]

But many borders have been re-arranged since WWII, and so many systems of government toppled in so many countries, that the US is actually one of the oldest these days.

Egypt (North-Sudan included) (3150-3500 B.C)
India (3000 B.C)
Ethiopia (Eritrea included)(2500-3000 B.C)
China (2000 B.C)
San Marino (301 AD)
France (486 AD)
Bulgaria (632 AD)
Japan (650 AD)
Scotland (843 AD)
Turkey (900 AD)
England (927 AD)
Denmark (950 AD)
Portugal (1143 AD)
Andorra (1278 AD)
Switzerland (1291 AD)

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

Egypt (North-Sudan included) (3150-3500 B.C) Egyptian Republic declared: 1953 AD (New Revolution: 2011 AD)
India (3000 B.C) Indian Republic formed: 1950 AD
Ethiopia (Eritrea included)(2500-3000 B.C) Sovereignty gained: 1944 AD, current Constitution: 1995 AD
China (2000 B.C) People's Republic of China proclaimed: 1949 AD
San Marino (301 AD) Constitution: 1600 AD (fair deuce )
France (486 AD) French Republic fromed: 1792 AD, current constitution: 1958 AD
Bulgaria (632 AD) Independence declared: 1908 AD
Japan (650 AD) Current constitution: 1947 AD
Scotland (843 AD) UK Acts of Union 1707 AD, 1801 AD
Turkey (900 AD) Republic declared: 1923 AD
England (927 AD) UK Acts of Union 1707 AD, 1801 AD, Anglo-Irish Treaty 1922 AD
Denmark (950 AD) Constitutional Monarchy established: 1849 AD
Portugal (1143 AD) Republic established: 1910 AD, Democracy established: 1974 AD
Andorra (1278 AD) Seems accurate
Switzerland (1291 AD) Federal State established: 1848AD

Ammended for accuracy, assuming Estabon meant the countries as their governments exist more or less in their current form, not how long they've been populated or when a government of any sort was established there. I'm going off of his mention of borders changing post-WW2, but I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth.

At any rate, there are 196 countries in the world (depending on who's counting ), so 15 out of 196 being older would still make the US "one of the oldest," as Estabon said.


Sometimes I have waaaay too much free time at work...

 

[Xaios]

Sometimes I have waaaay too much free time at work...

Well hey, at least you're educating someone.

 

[leonardo7]

Is this legit?

Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after war began - Daily Record

 

[hairychris]

^
White phosphorus seems to have been used on several occasions by both the "good" and the "bad" guys. I honestly had no idea about this, but I guess when the "good" guys use CW it doesn't attract as much attention.

White phosphorus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though I don't quite understand if it's illegal or not.

It depends on how it's used. Against people it's illegal, to confuse IR targeting it's legal. Problem is that it becomes very difficult to police.

As for Syria:

People are saying that it's all about the US. It's not, obviously. However, if the US starts bombing people all of a sudden it does become about the US, projection of Western power where it isn't wanted, blah blah blah.

Bombing, therefore, would be a bad idea without international approval. Unilateral bombing against own govts advice... really bad idea. I'm glad that our lot (UK) are fighting each other and haven't voted to follow the US's lead no matter what they do. UK has been cutting military budget and can't afford to get involved in a 3rd war.

I have no doubt that nasty things are going on. On both sides, probably. Assad is not a pleasant bloke, but the west have been supporting his family's rule for decades. Remember that.

The US Government, who are not seen to negotiate in good faith in that part of the world, will be sticking their cocks in another wasps' nest by getting involved. Throwing in the support of Saudia Arabia, the ongoing Sunni/Shiite conflict, that any retaliation may be towards Israel (seen as US's best buddy) and the shit that this will provoke. Also, bombing these types of conflict without a ground forces component never works. Bombing breaks shit, it doesn't add any positive value.

Yeah. Don't do it.

Another thing to think about. All those fundamentalist Christian Zionists who are pro-war? yeah, they want to bring the end of the world. Ignore those ....tards, mm?

 

[Quitty]

It depends on how it's used. Against people it's illegal, to confuse IR targeting it's legal. Problem is that it becomes very difficult to police.

As for Syria:

People are saying that it's all about the US. It's not, obviously. However, if the US starts bombing people all of a sudden it does become about the US, projection of Western power where it isn't wanted, blah blah blah.

Bombing, therefore, would be a bad idea without international approval. Unilateral bombing against own govts advice... really bad idea. I'm glad that our lot (UK) are fighting each other and haven't voted to follow the US's lead no matter what they do. UK has been cutting military budget and can't afford to get involved in a 3rd war.

I have no doubt that nasty things are going on. On both sides, probably. Assad is not a pleasant bloke, but the west have been supporting his family's rule for decades. Remember that.

The US Government, who are not seen to negotiate in good faith in that part of the world, will be sticking their cocks in another wasps' nest by getting involved. Throwing in the support of Saudia Arabia, the ongoing Sunni/Shiite conflict, that any retaliation may be towards Israel (seen as US's best buddy) and the shit that this will provoke. Also, bombing these types of conflict without a ground forces component never works. Bombing breaks shit, it doesn't add any positive value.

Yeah. Don't do it.

Another thing to think about. All those fundamentalist Christian Zionists who are pro-war? yeah, they want to bring the end of the world. Ignore those ....tards, mm?

Spot on.
And i actually haven't considered non-Israeli zionists, i guess they do exist.

Sometimes i just want to let the Sunns and Shiite have their war. With all the time i spent involved with these people i never quite got what the bloody argument was about, but i'm pretty sure if i ever found out, i'd be sorely disappointed.

 

[hairychris]

Spot on.
And i actually haven't considered non-Israeli zionists, i guess they do exist.

Sometimes i just want to let the Sunns and Shiite have their war. With all the time i spent involved with these people i never quite got what the bloody argument was about, but i'm pretty sure if i ever found out, i'd be sorely disappointed.

Seriously dude, they have some political influence in the US on the Christian Conservative right - the loony part of the Republican party included. It's the whole "god calling the Jews back to the holy land before the apocalypse can happen" thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

Dispensationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously weird stuff, and if you factor it in to US's foreign relations it's scary too. Some of these guys WANT a full-scale meltdown in the middle east (although may not out and out admit it, a few do!), and they have a powerful lobby.

 

[vansinn]

Couldn't find this in the English version of Der Spiegel, so this is in German:
Syrien: BND fängt Beleg für Giftgaseinsatz durch Assad-Regime ab - SPIEGEL ONLINE

I could easily translate it, but not being a registered translator, I could make errors.
I will, however, relay a few interesting key points..

It says that German intelligence BND has seen evidence that Assad did the deed.
It says he launched several small rockets (107 mm, or maybe it's the canisters) with gas.
And that the BND should've intercepted a phone conversation with a Hezbollah official, who should have stated that Assad had snapped from stress, and thus made this grave error.
Of course, the phone conversation was secret intel..

Now, the comments about those small rockets is the interesting part, because this blog: Talk:Alleged Chemical Attack, August 21, 2013 - A Closer Look On Syria - which is made by a Syrian living in France, reverse-engineers videos of small rocket launches.
The vids themselves aren't too interesting; rather, it's that he has identified the launch sites, distance to target, angles of flight etc.., and shows the launches took place not in Assad controlled territory, but in rebel controlled territory.

Difficult to make anything out of it; but very interesting with the similarity in descriptions of those rockets - just with quite opposite directions..

And then NATO Secretary General Anders Fock Rasmussen's statements: For individual allies to decide their response to Syria ? NATO chief ? RT News that ...he had seen concrete evidence that made him convinced “not only that a chemical attack had taken place, but… also convinced that the Syrian regime is responsible.”
But of course: ...stated that he could not discuss evidence presented to him thus far. “I do not comment on intelligence reports,” he affirmed.

WTF! stating almost sure intel, but not commenting on intel..
This is how he's always been mixing non/semi-facts with applied factual fictional semi-truth.
I hate this hybrid of a weasel and a snake, and if it wasn't for being married to a dancing lady and not generally being known for other directions (other than light pink lipstick preferences), I'd assume he'd be rubbing his snake skin in carnuba wax.
Sorry 'bout my rants, but he's done so much damage to the otherwise good face my country used to enjoy mostly world wide.

 

[vampiregenocide]

Horrible things happen in the world every day that don't make headlines. Thousands of innocent people suffer torture at the hands of really evil people. We rarely take notice, let alone get involved. We aren't the world police, and while it would be great if we could stamp out this sort of thing and save the world, we can't. This sort of evil will happen regardless of our involvement. Trying to stop it is a waste of time.

And I don't believe the West is pushing for involvement in this out of the goodness of their own hearts. If we were such angels, we wouldn't sell weapons to these people in the first place. Our hands are as bloody as theirs. There is an ulterior motive to getting involved. I'm not politically aware enough to tell you what it is, but I'm betting it's there.

It saddens me that people are suffering out there, but I do not think military action is the way forward. More civilians will die than troops.

Also, it ....ing annoys me that the U.S seems to think that it can do whatever it wants in matters like this. Their attitude towards this whole event basically comes across like this:

U.S: YO IMA THROW DOWN DUDE

UN: Chill a bit while we figure thi-

U.S IM TELLIN YA MAN IMA THROW DOWN

 

[estabon37]

Ammended for accuracy, assuming Estabon meant the countries as their governments exist more or less in their current form, not how long they've been populated or when a government of any sort was established there. I'm going off of his mention of borders changing post-WW2, but I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth.

At any rate, there are 196 countries in the world (depending on who's counting ), so 15 out of 196 being older would still make the US "one of the oldest," as Estabon said.


Sometimes I have waaaay too much free time at work...

Thanks dude, you nailed it! This is why I should be paying people smarter than I am to make the points I'm trying to make. If only I had money...

In a stupid aside, we have an election in Australia on Saturday, and our two party leaders had a minor argument through the media the other day because one of them described the situation in Syria as "baddies versus baddies", and the other said that kind of immature approach to foreign policy shows what a shit leader he'd be. Unfortunately, I think the first guy explained it in the only way most Australians would understand it, which says a lot about how much our country gives a stuff about the rest of the planet.

I think when Vansinn highlighted General Rasmussen's statements of 'evidence' shows why the world can't get involved in Syria just yet. A lot of people, both within and outside Syria, are presenting all kinds of evidence to indict one of the two sides. This either means that one side is doing a great job of deceiving us, and falsifying evidence, or both sides can be held accountable for atrocities. Either way, there's no truly clear-cut side to take, unless enough people with enough firepower went in and threatened to fight both sides unless they sat down and negotiated peacefully. And the chances of that happening are...?

 

[flexkill]

Why must the USA be the hammer for every fvcking thing that happens in the world? I think what happened is terrible, the people killed by the gas, but we are so fvcked up right now how can we keep policing the world? The old adage that you can't help others until you help yourself keeps coming to mind. This can not keep going on this way....can it? I want justice and all that shit but for fvcks sake man....this country is in the shitter at the moment... when do we "fix" ourselves? Jesus it just keeps turning doesn't it!

This is just fvcking ridiculous!!! The human life has 0 value to so many people it is sickening.