Thread: The crisis in Syria

U.S. to release information about Syria's chemical weapons use - CNN.com

So - back to topic - looks like the US is going to release its "evidence" that Assad is responsible for the chemical attacks. I have to say I am very skeptical of US intelligence, recalling how US intel about WMD's in Iraq turned out to be false. But I guess we shall see what we shall see.

The Obama administration will release declassified intelligence Friday backing up a government assessment that the Syrian regime was responsible for a chemical weapons attack, a senior administration official said.

This comes amid talk among major powers of a military response against the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The administration has said that the information would be made public by the end of the week.

But diplomatic and political developments this week raised the chances of the United States going it alone in a military intervention.

Hands Off Syria - Take action against U.S. intervention!

To get a broad picture of just how many Americans oppose military involvement in Syria, this article has a list of all the anti-war protests going on across the US. It is an extensive list!

Originally Posted by Deborski

Russia Worried About Strikes on Syria? Not Really | Features & Opinion | RIA Novosti

Some encouraging news from Russia.

I don't see nothing encouraging here. Just very cynical count of profits and losses from the tragedy that Syrian people currently suffer.

Originally Posted by Basil77

I don't see nothing encouraging here. Just very cynical count of profits and losses from the tragedy that Syrian people currently suffer.

I know what you mean. But I meant "encouraging" only in the sense that Russia does not plan to confront the US in a military way. In the US right now, there is a lot of speculation that Russia, China, and Iran will try to fight us. There are reports that Russian warships have started massing in the Suez. So, if the Russian article is accurate, it shows that Russia has no intent of intervening militarily.

As for the profits and losses from the tragedy, and the suffering of the Syrian people... that, of course, is sad beyond words.

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

Exactly. So best way to do is support "the dictatorial government" (and I wonder, could exist non-dictatorial one in the East at all?) to suppress the opposition and take away their arms. Then, in gratitude Asad will unfold civic reforms, and may be even eventually lose the power.
Forecasts are gloomy, though, in any case. For many years it would be like Egypt or worse.

I thought we were discussing ways to help the Syrian people without heavy military intervention; what you're suggesting fails on both levels: it implies military intervention, + it's gonna ruin those people's lives completely, coz they will be defeated by the thugs; I don't get it unless some hidden sarcasm was meant which I didn't understand.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

I thought we were discussing ways to help the Syrian people without heavy military intervention; what you're suggesting fails on both levels: it implies military intervention, + it's gonna ruin those people's lives completely, coz they will be defeated by the thugs; I don't get it unless some hidden sarcasm was meant which I didn't understand.

I thought it was sarcasm mostly ))

No need for intervention. Just help to cut the flow of weapons and ammo to rebels.

Originally Posted by Basil77

I don't see nothing encouraging here. Just very cynical count of profits and losses from the tragedy that Syrian people currently suffer.

I just feel this is so incredibly tragic.

• Syria was a country where moslems and Christians were living happily side by side, each group having the option to be as religious or as secular as they wanted.
• They had a good standard of education and a decent free health care system.
• The country was reforming at a steady pace.
• Syria had taken care of millions of refugees from around the Middle East, primarily Iraqis and Palestinians. It showed great generosity on the part of the state and the people there.
• It's one of the oldest civilisations on earth and it's got amazing cities and structures that are on the world heritage list.

They're now going to be attacked, occupied, westernised / Americanised, dragged screeming and kicking into the global econonomy, which, for them will mean a position near the bottom: Sweatshop country.

Their country will then be exploited for bases and to further the US ultimate objective of invading the oil trophy No 1: IRAN.
That is the real name of the game; all serious security analysts are quite honest about it if you read serious articles in broadsheet papers.

And all this was roadmapped back in the 1990s, when the USA realised that sans the USSR, the Middle East would be theirs for the picking, if they played the manipulation and propaganda cards right. And it's not a consipiracy theory; the proof is available on Wikileaks and even Youtube,

Sure, the Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya interventions were miserable failures, from a human and democracy perspective. But the bases are there, and the oil is flowing, on Western conditions.... No price too high for that.

Bring your wallets out, Americans, because you will be funding yet another decade long war, and eventually the Iran war that's now written in the sky.

I have one more thing to say on this:

You Russians think Putin is undemocratic and corrupt. Sure, this may be right, and I hope it gets sorted out one way or another. It's not really for me to comment on his domestic policies anyway, since they don't concern me.

But he has the RIGHT idea in terms of foreign policy and you should honestly be proud of that!
The USA with it's constant aggressiveness and rhetoric may have some of the European countries in its pockets...

But the rest of the world will admire Russia (and China) for acting in a principled way in world politics, and not using its military strength to bully, invade and oppress. Hopefully this will pay off -- sooner or later.

Your tax money is paying for the one English speaking international channel that tells the truth about what's going on in places like Syria.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I have one more thing to say on this:

You Russians think Putin is undemocratic and corrupt. Sure, this may be right, and I hope it gets sorted out one way or another. It's not really for me to comment on his domestic policies anyway, since they don't concern me.

But he has the RIGHT idea in terms of foreign policy and you should honestly be proud of that!
The USA with it's constant aggressiveness and rhetoric may have some of the European countries in its pockets...

But the rest of the world will admire Russia (and China) for acting in a principled way in world politics, and not using its military strength to bully, invade and oppress. Hopefully this will pay off -- sooner or later.

Your tax money is paying for the one English speaking international channel that tells the truth about what's going on in places like Syria.

It would be better if their tax money helped improve their roads and raise the scale of living in the countryside, though.

'Syrian rebels take responsibility for the chemical attack admitting the weapons were provided by Saudis' - source - News - World - The Voice of Russia: News, Breaking news, Politics, Economics, Business, Russia, International current events,

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” he writes in the article.

The rebels noted it was a result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

As Gavlak reports, Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels died in a weapons storage tunnel. The father stated the weapons were provided to rebel forces by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K’. “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

Gavlak also refers to an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks stating that Prince Bandar threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if Russia doesn’t agree to change its stance on Syria.

US intel report stops short of confirming Assad is responsible for chemical attack — RT USA

“Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the US Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation,” the report reads in part.

So in other words, US still DOES NOT ACTUALLY HAVE CONFIRMATION.

Apparently there are also pretty good signs that the rebels already used chemical weapons.









And remember that this has very little to do with democracy, human rights or any concern for the Syrian people.
Eyes on the prize as far as these guys are concerned. It's Iran they really want, and Syria, from there perspective is a really worthwhile milestone in that project.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I have one more thing to say on this:

You Russians think Putin is undemocratic and corrupt. Sure, this may be right, and I hope it gets sorted out one way or another. It's not really for me to comment on his domestic policies anyway, since they don't concern me.

But he has the RIGHT idea in terms of foreign policy and you should honestly be proud of that!
The USA with it's constant aggressiveness and rhetoric may have some of the European countries in its pockets...

But the rest of the world will admire Russia (and China) for acting in a principled way in world politics, and not using its military strength to bully, invade and oppress. Hopefully this will pay off -- sooner or later.

Your tax money is paying for the one English speaking international channel that tells the truth about what's going on in places like Syria.

Blah, blah, blah... Just because they might be accurate about one thing, doesn't mean they tell 'the truth' about everything or anything else.

'It's not really for me to comment on his domestic policies anyway, since they don't concern me.'

Then why are you 'telling Russians' to think A or B about Putin at all? How do you conclude anything? LOL!

"But he has the RIGHT idea in terms of foreign policy and you should honestly be proud of that!"
Proud of what? Perhaps, they are just glad that his puppet masters are not pushing him to go full throttle (like those 'leaders' in the USA, UK and France?)?

Anyway, I agree with most of the comments regarding Syria that the USA is in the wrong.

But, there are no 'good guys' here. They are all just in for their own self-interest and what strategy is best for them. However, the USA is among the most unethical as they have participated in something so heinous in supporting rebels who gassed innocent Syrians. If there's no proof or evidence given (either way), the U.S. is committing the despicable in totally lying already without anything to substantiate their claims. Regardless, it is not their job to 'police' and people are fed up with it. Furthermore, to add to this, they are bankrupt so it is absolutely laughable that they would even engage in more military involvement. Do Americans not care about that?!? The polls show only 50% support a strike??!?!? I'm very wary of polls but this number is quite high. I wonder if it's just manufactured because the number should be ZERO.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Apparently there are also pretty good signs that the rebels already used chemical weapons.

And remember that this has very little to do with democracy, human rights or any concern for the Syrian people.
Eyes on the prize as far as these guys are concerned. It's Iran they really want, and Syria, from there perspective is a really worthwhile milestone in that project.

A few days ago, it seemed that bombing was imminent. They even said the airstrikes would commence on Thursday. The fact that this has been delayed encourages me. There are massive protests going on in the US (whether our war-loving media covers them is another matter) and we have been calling the White House and our representatives NONSTOP. I hope this is a sign that Obama is backing away from a military intervention. Of course, I could be wrong.

PS, Hanna, remember what you said about trolls? As you can see, the one you were describing before, isn't the only one...

Okay. I just finished reading the whole thread.

First, I agree with post #36 (Russia vs USSR). I think there's always good and bad in any government and I think that was true for Syria. They had a decent government and they wanted even more. Now they've lost everything cause they were too impatient to wait for changes to happen.

I kinda agree with post #69. I read about the Afghan thing in 1979. The leader was too friendly with the west and the Russians wanted him out for National Security reasons. The US used that as an excuse to train Middle East terrorists to attack the new system in Afghanistan. One of those terrorists was Osama bin Laden. It was another way to set up a military base aimed at Russia. And Afghanistan became the poorest country in the world. The score was America gets everything, Afghanistan gets almost nothing.

Now the US wants Syria so they can seriously damage Iran's economy. Obama doesn't care how many Syrian people die or even how they die. If they died because of illegal chemical weapons then that's even better cause he can use that excuse to bomb Syria. Then he can put his own dictator in power and yeah, Syria can be another sweatshop country. And who gets all the profits from that? The factories.
The next thing that happens is Obama will find a reason to bomb Iran.

It's too sad to even think about all the people who will die from all these wars.
That's why I believe that Assad should win. Yeah, a lot of people will still suffer and die but not as many as there will be if Iran is attacked too. These wars need to stop!

Also, if Obama gives arms and stuff to the rebels then he's giving them to the terrorists and Al-Qaeda too. And that's called "Aiding The Enemy". And that's treason.
There's 2 things I saw and read that really scared me about all this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/wo...isks.html?_r=0

akEobyCsktY

I think Medvedev may have just been saber rattling. But it was scary and that NY Times article is even scarier. It could escalate into something nobody can control.
I just hope Congress can stop Obama before any of this can happen.

Why Syria Intervention Plan Is Being Pushed by Oil Interests, Not Concern About Chemical Weapons | Alternet

From this article:

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

Experts warn Syria attack could escalate violence and further destabilize region | The Raw Story

From this article:

Some Middle East experts are throwing cold water on the Obama administration’s contention that a limited missile strike on Syria won’t actually result in more violence and a further destabilization of the region. According to an article at the top of the New York Times website, even a well-executed strategic strike against the nation could aggravate tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia — both nations that seek to dominate the region politically and militarily — and actually have the effect of buoying up Syria’s beleaguered President Bashar al-Assad.

Middle East watchers say that the only truly predictable thing about the highly unstable region is that any actions will produce unintended consequences. They warn of a possible Assad-bolstering surge of anti-Americanism or even a spreading of hostilities to other countries in the region, including Turkey and Israel.

Ryan Crocker, a key figure in the U.S. mishandling of the invasion and occupation of Iraq told the Times, “Our biggest problem is ignorance; we’re pretty ignorant about Syria.” He served as ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009 and is currently the Dean of the George W. Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University.

Drawing from his own experience attempting to manage the situation in Iraq after the catastrophic waves of violence that enveloped the country in 2006, Crocker warned that one U.S. raid is no assurance that Assad will stop carrying out chemical raids.

“So he continues on in defiance — maybe he even launches another chemical attack to put a stick in our eye — and then what?” Crocker asked. “Because once you start down this road, it’s pretty hard to get off it and maintain political credibility.”

Originally Posted by Deborski

Why Syria Intervention Plan Is Being Pushed by Oil Interests, Not Concern About Chemical Weapons | Alternet

From this article:

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

By coincidence, those were (and some still are) the nastiest dictatorships in the region.

Just spoke with my friend from Syria - and she says she fears any US military involvement will only trigger retaliation from terrorists, and the Syrian people will pay the price. I think she is exactly right.