Thread: The crisis in Syria

Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity Warn Obama On Syrian Intel | PopularResistance.Org

A group known as Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) states that, contrary to assertions made by the Obama administration, intelligence does NOT prove that Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons attack said to have killed over 1400 people.

We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”

Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you.

There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.

According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.

We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.

Apparently Russia has now said that it will protect Syria against a marine invasion.
I agree that this is right, but this is practically a cold war situation!
Best case scenario: The Russian presence works as a deterrence and they back off.
I like that Russia puts its' money where its' mouth is, but at the same time it's scary and an echo of the past.

Either way, the beautiful and previously stable country of Syria is in ruins. Regardless of what happens they have a decade of misery ahead of them, and 2 million already left the country.

It's such a tragedy and how anyone can be so shameless as to pretend that bombing will make things better, is unbelievable.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Apparently Russia has now said that it will protect Syria against a marine invasion.
I agree that this is right, but this is practically a cold war situation!
Best case scenario: The Russian presence works as a deterrence and they back off.
I like that Russia puts its' money where its' mouth is, but at the same time it's scary and an echo of the past.

Either way, the beautiful and previously stable country of Syria is in ruins. Regardless of what happens they have a decade of misery ahead of them, and 2 million already left the country.

It's such a tragedy and how anyone can be so shameless as to pretend that bombing will make things better, is unbelievable.

I am hearing conflicting stories regarding Russian ships in the Mediterranean. US news makes it sound like they are building up for a potential conflict with the US, but Russian news continues to state that the ships are there as part of a regular rotation which has been going on since before the crisis in Syria began two years ago.

If you have Russian articles stating that Russia intends to mount a military defense against the US, by all means share them because I haven't found any which say that.

This article was in RIA Novosti this morning (English edition)

Russia Boosts Mediterranean Fleet for Potential Evacuation – Kremlin | World | RIA Novosti

Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said earlier on Thursday that the country’s increased presence in the Mediterranean is “a legitimate, natural and predictable reaction to the situation developing” in the region.

“Our actions are in strict compliance with international law and the UN Charter,” he stressed, adding that the Mediterranean Sea is “quite close to Russia’s borders.”

However, he stressed that Russia’s naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea should not be interpreted as an indication that the country plans to take an active role in any regional conflict, he said.

This was RT's version of the story, which basically said the same thing and even quoted the RIA Novosti article directly.

Troubled waters: Naval forces line Syrian shores — RT News

I have also read through Russian-language news and have not seen anything saying that Russia intends to become involved militarily on any front.

At this point, the majority of US citizens strongly oppose a military strike against Syria, and the vote in Congress appears to be shaping up to support that, although there are still many undecided. Personally I hope the US does not strike, but if it does, I do not think that Russia is going to start attacking US warships, for which I am grateful. Not because I think America is doing the right thing with a military strike, but because someone has to keep a calm head and prevent World War Three from starting, if at all possible. I admire Russia for its restraint.

Originally Posted by Deborski

I am hearing conflicting stories regarding Russian ships in the Mediterranean. US news makes it sound like they are building up for a potential conflict with the US, but Russian news continues to state that the ships are there as part of a regular rotation which has been going on since before the crisis in Syria began two years ago.

If you have Russian articles stating that Russia intends to mount a military defense against the US, by all means share them because I haven't found any which say that.

This article was in RIA Novosti this morning (English edition)

Russia Boosts Mediterranean Fleet for Potential Evacuation – Kremlin | World | RIA Novosti



This was RT's version of the story, which basically said the same thing and even quoted the RIA Novosti article directly.

Troubled waters: Naval forces line Syrian shores — RT News

I have also read through Russian-language news and have not seen anything saying that Russia intends to become involved militarily on any front.

At this point, the majority of US citizens strongly oppose a military strike against Syria, and the vote in Congress appears to be shaping up to support that, although there are still many undecided. Personally I hope the US does not strike, but if it does, I do not think that Russia is going to start attacking US warships, for which I am grateful. Not because I think America is doing the right thing with a military strike, but because someone has to keep a calm head and prevent World War Three from starting, if at all possible. I admire Russia for its restraint.

Well I hope you are right and that the mere presence will make the Americans think twice.
But "routine military exercise" is the oldest excuse in the book, seriously. That's exactly what Britain happens to be involved in JUST as the Gibraltar issue flares up again. And it's no small exercise. I personally happen to support the UK on that, but I don't think anyone involved believes that the exercise is "long planned" as Cameron insists. It's also what triggers the annual stand-off with North Korea. Russia does have large military exercises as everyone on the Baltic coasts know. But they are always well advertised beforehand, whereas this wasn't from what I understand.

I don't care though. I think the US aggression must be stopped and if the presence of Russian ships will make them think twice they can use a white excuse as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by Deborski

I am hearing conflicting stories regarding Russian ships in the Mediterranean. US news makes it sound like they are building up for a potential conflict with the US, but Russian news continues to state that the ships are there as part of a regular rotation which has been going on since before the crisis in Syria began two years ago.

If you have Russian articles stating that Russia intends to mount a military defense against the US, by all means share them because I haven't found any which say that.

This article was in RIA Novosti this morning (English edition)

Russia Boosts Mediterranean Fleet for Potential Evacuation – Kremlin | World | RIA Novosti



This was RT's version of the story, which basically said the same thing and even quoted the RIA Novosti article directly.

Troubled waters: Naval forces line Syrian shores — RT News

I have also read through Russian-language news and have not seen anything saying that Russia intends to become involved militarily on any front.

At this point, the majority of US citizens strongly oppose a military strike against Syria, and the vote in Congress appears to be shaping up to support that, although there are still many undecided. Personally I hope the US does not strike, but if it does, I do not think that Russia is going to start attacking US warships, for which I am grateful. Not because I think America is doing the right thing with a military strike, but because someone has to keep a calm head and prevent World War Three from starting, if at all possible. I admire Russia for its restraint.

As I said, triggering WW3 because someone attacked a country like Syria (EVEN IF it was an act of aggression) is the stupidest thing to do at this point; external countries may help alter a local conflict, but it absolutely has to be kept a local conflict, and everyone including Russia realizes that (I think even the USSR if it still existed would realize that);

On the other hand, I've heard the crazy dictator threatened to attack Israel, Turkey and Jordan if he got his @ss attacked, which shows HE doesn't fear a WW3 scenario, and is willing to do anything to stay in power, which suggests the safest situation in the region is achieved with him far far away from his throne.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Well I hope you are right and that the mere presence will make the Americans think twice.
But "routine military exercise" is the oldest excuse in the book, seriously. That's exactly what Britain happens to be involved in JUST as the Gibraltar issue flares up again. And it's no small exercise. I personally happen to support the UK on that, but I don't think anyone involved believes that the exercise is "long planned" as Cameron insists. It's also what triggers the annual stand-off with North Korea. Russia does have large military exercises as everyone on the Baltic coasts know. But they are always well advertised beforehand, whereas this wasn't from what I understand.

I don't care though. I think the US aggression must be stopped and if the presence of Russian ships will make them think twice they can use a white excuse as far as I'm concerned.

There's no way to know for sure, but I am going off of what is being said in Russian news and what Russian officials are saying. I believe Russia is certainly showing more forbearance than the US, at any rate, and I'm glad someone is!

As for serving as a deterrent, that may be true as well. US articles make it sound like our ships are about to start firing on each other and that alone is enough to cause some Americans to oppose the airstrikes in Syria, regardless of whether it is true.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

On the other hand, I've heard the crazy dictator threatened to attack Israel, Turkey and Jordan if he got his @ss attacked, which shows HE doesn't fear a WW3 scenario, and is willing to do anything to stay in power, which suggests the safest situation in the region is achieved with him far far away from his throne.

And what happens after we "topple Assad"? Does anyone even try to think that far ahead? Who takes power then? In whose hands will the chemical weapons end up? Which jihadist group will assume control and will they really be so much better for the stability of the region that Assad's secular government was?

Originally Posted by Deborski

And what happens after we "topple Assad"? Does anyone even try to think that far ahead? Who takes power then? In whose hands will the chemical weapons end up? Which jihadist group will assume control and will they really be so much better for the stability of the region that Assad's secular government was?

If their only two options are either a secular totalitarian dictatorship, or a sharia jihadist group, I feel so sorry for them...

LOL

The "crazy dictator" threatened to attack Israel but the cannibals (supporting by the US), I suppose, will kiss an every Jew there after they win. What a pathetic thinking. Of course, if the cannibals get CW, they use it in Israel or even in Europe. Can you imagine thousands of killed people in Paris, London, Rome and so on? I can, it's absolutely a realistic picture. And the super-duper "democratic" state (USA) will be guilty of that. (Deleted. L.)

Do you know that some of these jihadists ALREADY think they fight against Israel (I watched some videos, they say about that freely)? Yes, they are very stupid and uneducated fanatics, so any commander can persuade them easily. But you all, who live in the "open" world, why are you that silly?

Originally Posted by Paul G.

LOL

The "crazy dictator" threatened to attack Israel but the cannibals (supporting by the US), I suppose, will kiss an every Jew there after they win. What a pathetic thinking. Of course, if the cannibals get CW, they use it in Israel or even in Europe. Can you imagine thousands of killed people in Paris, London, Rome and so on? I can, it's absolutely a realistic picture. And the super-duper "democratic" state (USA) will be guilty of that. And personally you, Eric C., if you live there.

Do you know that some of these jihadists ALREADY think they fight against Israel (I watched some videos, they say about that freely)? Yes, they are very stupid and uneducated fanatics, so any commander can persuade them easily. But you all, who live in the "open" world, why are you that silly?

I do NOT support the jihadists that fight there, no matter what side they're on. I think the Syrian people should get rid of both the dictator and jihadists, and I've stated this multiple times before, so I wonder if someone here has a reading problem. Or maybe, someone here thinks that stopping jihadists should always take bloody style scummy totalitarian regimes like that in Syria? I for one believe fighting terrorism is possible WITHOUT attacking law-abiding citizens for their views.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

I do NOT support the jihadists that fight there, no matter what side they're on. I think the Syrian people should get rid of both the dictator and jihadists, and I've stated this multiple times before, so I wonder if someone here has a reading problem. Or maybe, someone here thinks that stopping jihadists should always take bloody style scummy totalitarian regimes like that in Syria? I for one believe fighting terrorism is possible WITHOUT attacking law-abiding citizens for their views.

And I for one believe that we can defeat terrorism without attacking. Period. We have not even begun to exhaust all other diplomatic means.

This Syrian woman summed it up nicely when she bravely stood up to Senator John McCain the other day. McCain, of course, only voted against Obama's air-strike because McCain thinks an air-strike would not be enough military intervention. He favors a full-on, troops on the ground, military conflict which could go on for years (and provide plenty of money for him and his friends who invest in Raytheon and other military stocks).

Originally Posted by Deborski

And I for one believe that we can defeat terrorism without attacking. Period. We have not even begun to exhaust all other diplomatic means.

This Syrian woman summed it up nicely when she bravely stood up to Senator John McCain the other day. McCain, of course, only voted against Obama's air-strike because McCain thinks an air-strike would not be enough military intervention. He favors a full-on, troops on the ground, military conflict which could go on for years (and provide plenty of money for him and his friends who invest in Raytheon and other military stocks).

She wants both sides to stop being supported by Saudi Arabia/Iran; I can imagine how the congress could get SA to stop supporting the rebels, but do you think it will be that easy with Iran? It will just become a one side street with all the dictatorships in the region supporting Assad, and of course he'll win and re-run his oppressive system one more time. By the way, this conflict might give him excuses to go after his opponents among the civilians in even harsher ways, and a lot of people might suffer just for what they think. Is that what you'd want?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

She wants both sides to stop being supported by Saudi Arabia/Iran; I can imagine how the congress could get SA to stop supporting the rebels, but do you think it will be that easy with Iran? It will just become a one side street with all the dictatorships in the region supporting Assad, and of course he'll win and re-run his oppressive system one more time. By the way, this conflict might give him excuses to go after his opponents among the civilians in even harsher ways, and a lot of people might suffer just for what they think. Is that what you'd want?

You are making so many assumptions here that I cannot keep track! For starters, you are assuming that the US actually has proof of Assad's guilt, which there is no way to know since all of that intelligence is so "classified" that even our representatives are not allowed to see it. Please refer to the article by Congressman Alan Grayson above. As for Iran, Russia still has quite a lot of influence in that country. Why do you assume that only the US wants to achieve peace? A united international effort would go much, much further towards resolving the situation and reining in both sides, than just America swaggering in like a cowboy with his gun drawn and making a bunch of threats. As for what I want? You assume a lot about that as well, which makes me wonder as to who it is not really reading the posts here. What makes you think that a US strike against Syria will not result in exactly what you describe: further retaliation against the people of Syria. That is what my Syrian friend's concerns are, in fact, and that is why she is strongly opposed to US military intervention. Since it is her family actually living over there, I respect her opinion and I do not take it lightly!

I do not, and never will, understand the kind of mindset which thinks that ONLY MILITARY ACTION can be the solution! There are a million other things we could try - but you do not even consider those things, you are just stuck on this mindset that the response MUST BE MILITARY. It's impossible to reason with someone who is so closed minded that they cannot even imagine any alternatives to military force.

Originally Posted by Deborski

You are making so many assumptions here that I cannot keep track! For starters, you are assuming that the US actually has proof of Assad's guilt, which there is no way to know since all of that intelligence is so "classified" that even our representatives are not allowed to see it. Please refer to the article by Congressman Alan Grayson above. As for Iran, Russia still has quite a lot of influence in that country. Why do you assume that only the US wants to achieve peace? A united international effort would go much, much further towards resolving the situation and reining in both sides, than just America swaggering in like a cowboy with his gun drawn and making a bunch of threats. As for what I want? You assume a lot about that as well, which makes me wonder as to who it is not really reading the posts here. What makes you think that a US strike against Syria will not result in exactly what you describe: further retaliation against the people of Syria. That is what my Syrian friend's concerns are, in fact, and that is why she is strongly opposed to US military intervention. Since it is her family actually living over there, I respect her opinion and I do not take it lightly!

I do not, and never will, understand the kind of mindset which thinks that ONLY MILITARY ACTION can be the solution! There are a million other things we could try - but you do not even consider those things, you are just stuck on this mindset that the response MUST BE MILITARY. It's impossible to reason with someone who is so closed minded that they cannot even imagine any alternatives to military force.

I do know there may be quite a few solutions to that situation, and I don't support the idea of a military strike for the sake of a military strike; what I was doing was examining one of those possible solutions, not saying there's nothing but a military strike.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

someone here thinks that stopping jihadists should always take bloody style scummy totalitarian regimes like that in Syria?

I think you twist the things. First of all, Assad's regime is not bloody. I even can say Saddam Husein was not that scummy and bloody like the western media portrays him. Of course, if you keep on staying on the brainwashed side, it's ok.

I believe that all the societies must evolve by themselves. Syria is not a democratic state, but any modern dictator is closer to democracy than cannibals. It's obvious. Yes, Assad is better than the cannibals. Anyone who says "it doesn't matter" and "both are equal" is supporting the evil in its metaphysical sense.
(Deleted. L.)

Syria chemical weapons attack not ordered by Assad, says German press | World news | The Guardian

Meanwhile, German intelligence suggests that Assad is not guilty for the chemical attack:

President Bashar al-Assad did not personally order last month's chemical weapons attack near Damascus that has triggered calls for US military intervention, and blocked numerous requests from his military commanders to use chemical weapons against regime opponents in recent months, a German newspaper has reported , citing unidentified, high-level national security sources.

The intelligence findings were based on phone calls intercepted by a German surveillance ship operated by the BND, the German intelligence service, and deployed off the Syrian coast, Bild am Sonntag said. The intercepted communications suggested Assad, who is accused of war crimes by the west, including foreign secretary William Hague, was not himself involved in last month's attack or in other instances when government forces have allegedly used chemical weapons.

It's not any of our business what happens there.
It's between the Syrians and their government!

Just like what goes on in the USA (within its borders) is not my business, it's between the Americans and their government.

It's when countries get aggressive and starts meddling, disturbing, invaduing or provoking other countries that there is a problem. Syria was minding its own business. If they wanted to get rid of their government they should do it themselves, off their own initiative. Just like the French, the Russians, the Americans and many others have thrown out corrupt goverments when they got enough. Without the involvement of anybody else.
Why should the Syrians not have the same opportunity and responsibility?

Originally Posted by Hanna

It's not any of our business what happens there.
It's between the Syrians and their government!

How can't it be your business, if thousands of the mercenaries fight against the Syrian Government? These mercenaries were hired with the help of the US and their "partners" like the UAE, Qatar etc.

They are NOT Syrians. It's a genetic trash from all the muslim world. You can find some soldiers even from Russia there (from the Caucasus, of course).

Originally Posted by Paul G.

How can't it be your business, if thousands of the mercenaries fight against the Syrian Government?

That's genius If it was THAT simple, I could only suggest they keep fighting until they annihilate each other xD Unfortunately, it's not even close to being that way...

Originally Posted by Paul G.

How can't it be your business, if thousands of the mercenaries fight against the Syrian Government? These mercenaries were hired with the help of the US and their "partners" like the UAE, Qatar etc.

They are NOT Syrians. It's a genetic trash from all the muslim world. You can find some soldiers even from Russia there (from the Caucasus, of course).

Yeah, these mercenaries should not have been sent there to start with, and the campaign to blackpaint Assad in Western media was wrong.
They should have been left to sort out their differences from Day 1.