Thread: The crisis in Syria

Originally Posted by Deborski

In what way does a picture of Obama with his foot on a desk prove anything.....?

It proves that Obama is a little boy who plays cowboy in father's private office. That's why he's in a doghouse now. And Americans too.

Maybe this picture proves that Putin is an evil warmonger who loves guns?

There are a lot of pictures where Obama is shooting. It doesn't matter.

Analysis: Military action in Syria faces uncertain fate in Congress | Reuters

Analysis: Military action in Syria faces uncertain fate in Congress - Reuters (US)

Underscoring the division was immediate discord over the timing of Congressional deliberations on Syria, particularly the decision by the House leadership to wait until the end of the summer recess on September 9 to get going, instead of returning to Washington on Tuesday or sooner.

While the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said late on Saturday it would begin hearings next week before Congress officially returns, no similar plan had been announced by the House.

"Congress should return to Washington immediately and begin to debate this issues," said Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, considered a likely Republican presidential contender in 2016.

The president has the authority under the Constitution to call Congress back in session "on extraordinary occasions," but so can the congressional leadership. Neither so far has taken that action.

Senior administration officials said Obama left it up to congressional leaders to decide whether to bring members back early because the administration wants to do classified briefings and make the case to Congress in the week ahead, and there were logistical issues with the Labor Day holiday on Monday and religious holidays in the middle of the week.

Perhaps we can glean more understanding from this photo. Many of America's soldiers feel the same way. Our military does not support Obama's plans for attacking Syria. Even the top brass have spoken out against it.

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/20...1/18742429.php

I got this article directly from the reporter who wrote it. He asserts that US-backed rebels want to impose Sharia law on women in Syria, and that female Kurdish soldiers are combating them.

The U.S. arms the anti-woman religious fanatics of Syria, and is preparing direct military air strikes to help bring them to power. Meanwhile, these same people list the secular and pro-woman Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) as a terrorist organization. The PYD is labeled a terrorist organization by the governments of Turkey, the United States, the European Union, and by NATO. Yet, the true terrorists are the U.S. backed Islamists in Syria.

Despite appeals for help from the Kurdish PYD to Amnesty International in exposing the crimes of the U.S. backed Islamists, Amnesty International is instead advising the U.S. on how best to carry out impending U.S. bombing raids on Syria. This reflects a far rightward turn the organization has taken in openly supporting U.S. imperialist wars.

The U.S. has long opposed the national rights of the Kurdish people, aiding Saddam Hussein as he murdered 90,000 Kurds in Iraq with poison gas and giving Turkey the military aid to murder tens of thousands of Kurds. In Syria, the U.S. prefers the Islamic puppets it is trying to groom for power within the rebel forces as an attempt at reliable allies in a post-secular Syria that will privatize the oil in the Kurdish oil rich region. They probably see the communist influenced PYD as less likely to sell-out Kurdish control of their own resources to world imperialist oil interests than the Islamist rebels they hope to place in power.

This article is one of the most in-depth I have seen on the entire Syrian situation and bears thorough reading by all who wish to be fully informed on the crisis.



Photo: August 28, 2013, Kurdish women in Ras Al-Ayn, liberated Kurdish Syria, battling against U.S. backed al Qaeda insurgents. Everywhere the U.S. backed rebels have come to power they have imposed anti-woman Sharia (Islamic) law and they have carried out genocide against Kurds, Christians, Alawites, and Shi’ites. [Photo credit Harold Doornbos and Jenan Moussa / FP]

"Russia Sharply Steps Up Criticism of US Over Syria" - Washington Post

- The Washington Post

From this article:

“I would like to address Obama as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate: Before using force in Syria, it would be good to think about future casualties,” Putin told Russian news agencies in Vladivostok during a tour of the country’s flood-stricken Far East.

“Russia is urging you to think twice before making a decision on an operation in Syria,” he said.

My friend from Syria, whom I mentioned earlier, just sent me this clip from Canadian television interviewing her husband, a doctor who volunteers his time at the refugee camps, helping those who have fled Syria.

The interview is mostly in French, but there is a little English, and it does give you an idea of just how much he and the other volunteers are up against, who are just trying to provide humanitarian aid. The video shows him trying to get medical equipment and other much needed emergency supplies to the refugee camps, which is almost impossible at times.

http://www.radio-canada.ca/widgets/m...dianet/6811656

If anyone's French is adequate to interpret what he said in its entirety, I would be much obliged!

NATO data: Assad winning the war for Syrians’ hearts and minds | World Tribune

Meanwhile, Assad has more support from the Syrian people than Obama has from the American people:

“The people are sick of the war and hate the jihadists more than Assad,” a Western source familiar with the data said. “Assad is winning the war mostly because the people are cooperating with him against the rebels.”

The data, relayed to NATO over the last month, asserted that 70 percent of Syrians support the Assad regime. Another 20 percent were deemed neutral and the remaining 10 percent expressed support for the rebels.

Originally Posted by Deborski

NATO data: Assad winning the war for Syrians’ hearts and minds | World Tribune

Meanwhile, Assad has more support from the Syrian people than Obama has from the American people:

Those are terrifying numbers. If that's true, I honestly have no idea what else that dictator has to do to make those people "unsupport" him... (I would understand 70 percent of neutral ones vs 20/10 for the dictator and rebels respectively, but 70 percent for the dictator? Terrifying...)

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Those are terrifying numbers. If that's true, I honestly have no idea what else that dictator has to do to make those people "unsupport" him... (I would understand 70 percent of neutral ones vs 20/10 for the dictator and rebels respectively, but 70 percent for the dictator? Terrifying...)

There is no way to know whether the people were ordered to support Assad, of course. I think 70% is a little high as well.

Originally Posted by Deborski

“The people are sick of the war and hate the jihadists more than Assad,” a Western source familiar with the data said. “Assad is winning the war mostly because the people are cooperating with him against the rebels.”

Yup, and that was clear to anyone who bothered listening to any kind of non-mainstream media over a year ago.
"Better the devil you know" obviously, and Assad was not that bad, by Middle Eastern standards.

It's quite unbelievable that BBC made quite charming "week-away" reports from Aleppo and Latakia only a few years ago, and portrayed the Assad regime as just a bit quaint and rather harmless and apologetic dictator who was earnestly trying to reform, with his super-chic British wife by his side. She worked as an analyst or something like that, for JP Morgan, if you would believe it!! ]

But then, they become aware that Syria is on Uncle Sam's hit list, and suddenly Syria is an evil dictatorship somebody wants to take it down and suddenly he's the worst monster that ever walked the earth, and his wife is Imelda Marcos / Marie Antoinette.

Originally Posted by Paul G.

That's ordinary American practice. They kill their own citizens for the political purposes, organize provocations all over the world etc, so don't you think they care about these nasty muslims somewhere in the hole like Syria? Even if those muslims are not religious fanatics? (There are a lot of Christians in Syria, by the way)


Are you really so naive? It shocked me.
They want to produce kinda "evidence" that Russia supports Assad and helps him to kill people with the help of CW. Because they think it would take Russia out of the game, if they publish these "facts" in the US Media. Of course, these "facts" must be obvious even for the most stupid American lookers.

I hope we are watching the last burping of the stinking monster before it croaks. Amen.

Yeah, maybe I AM a bit naive. I really didn't want to think they were doing things like that for real.
I don't WANT to hate America, and I want to give it the benefit of the doubt, but it's just impossible.

I have a particularly strong hatred for hypocrisy - I hate that, whether it's a country or a person displaying it.
I feel I must be sick in the head or something, because lately I am revising my view and beginning to genuinely feeling that the wrong and less worthy country won the Cold War. I was taken in by all the shocking "revelations" in the 90s and assumed the USA must be the lesser of two evils, but I am beginning to think I bought into a lie on all that. The USSR was doing it's dirty business to its own citizens early in its histry, instead of double-dealing around the world! Towards the end, it just wasn't prepared to play as hard and dirty as the game required, at home or abroad. The USA has no such scruples, clearly! The USA has more lives on its hands then the USSR had, I'd say.

Spying on the whole world, by default as we now know for sure, and then planting false and misleading evidence to start a war! While Putin is talking about "partners" and actually seems to be making gestures of friendship towards the USA, they plan this kind of things, with Quataris.

The email is real, 99% certain and I am sure people better than me tried to verify it, with more access as well.
That Malaysian hacker seems like the real deal for sure.

Go figure the Daily Mail pulled it after an hour! Probably they got a phone call from high up! Freedom of the press, huh!
Who are we to then complain that other countries put the lid on things! Or maybe it's not censorship if it happens here! It's perhaps anti-terrorism or something...

Daily Mail is quite conservative on most issues, but rather unexpectedly it will occassionally be extremely anti-American, to the extent you almost fall off your chair. In a sort of highbrow conservative British way that is extremely patronising and scornful. There was a similar article yesterday with regards to the USA, the Syria role and the UK.

Such a relief that the House of Commons saw sense on this war at last! I was mortified that my tax money should be used to kill innocent people in Syria, and open the country up for globalist exploitation.

It's a tragedy that it came to this. Apparently it was genuinely nice and safe for an Arab country, with everything from ancient ruins, cool souks and beaches. Now it's in ruins and millions have fled the country. We are expecting millions of refugees to try to make it to the EU, The Greek are mortified that they'll have a million of Syrians to take care of by international law, when their country is bankrupt.

The data, relayed to NATO over the last month, asserted that 70 percent
of Syrians support the Assad regime. Another 20 percent were deemed neutral and the remaining 10 percent expressed support for the rebels.

I think he always had at least 50% more or less behind him. Instead of having elections, places like this have revolutions or coups.


Meanwhile the people of Bahrain struggle on and nobody could care less in the Western media.
They can't have an Arab Spring because their regime is strongly west allied and and supports the US naval base there...
(and somehow it's wrong that Russia has a tiny, tiny base in Syria while it's completely ok that the USA has a kickass base in Bahrian.

I just spoke with my friend from Syria and she disagrees with the Assad poll. She thinks it was staged, like many of the pro-Assad demonstrations are. However, she agrees with me that the Syrian people do not like the jihadists either! The original rebel movement has, unfortunately, been taken over by terrorist factions much like the Taliban, who want to turn Syria into a religious state like Iran where women are not allowed to show their faces in public. My friend strongly opposes any military action in Syria by the US. In her words, it will escalate the situation and bring retaliation upon the people of Syria. She, like me, wishes more people would just send food, medical supplies, clothing, blankets, tents and anything/everything that can help the thousands of refugees! Fortunately, her own family and friends are safe and she herself is living in Canada.

Originally Posted by Deborski

The original rebel movement has, unfortunately, been taken over by terrorist factions much like the Taliban, who want to turn Syria into a religious state like Iran where women are not allowed to show their faces in public.

Just a minor correction. In Iran women do not hide their faces. They are only required to wear a headscarf at least partially hiding their hair. Nevertheless, it is fashionable to leave the front part of the hair open. Many Iranian women even do plastic surgery to make their faces more beautiful.

The country where women tend to hide their faces is Afghanistan. When Taliban was ruling, they were not allowed to show faces in public at all. Now, as far as I know, there is no legal restriction, but many women still tend to hide their faces there.

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

Just a minor correction. In Iran women do not hide their faces. They are only required to wear a headscarf at least partially hiding their hair. Nevertheless, it is fashionable to leave the front part of the hair open. Many Iranian women even do plastic surgery to make their faces more beautiful.

The country where women tend to hide their faces is Afghanistan. When Taliban was ruling, they were not allowed to show faces in public at all. Now, as far as I know, there is no legal restriction, but many women still tend to hide their faces there.

Fair enough, however, depending on what brand of Islam they subscribe to, women in many Muslim countries do wear the full burkha rather than just the hijab which only covers the hair. When I was in Syria during the 1980's, women completely covered in black burkhas were a common site even though the government at that time was secular. But you are correct, the government of Iran does not require women to hide their faces. Some of the more extreme factions fighting in Syria do.

Syria refugee crisis: how to donate | Global development | theguardian.com

In honor of my friend's wishes - here is an article from the Guardian UK with information on how to donate to the refugees of Syria. The article lists several reputable organizations who are trying to help. If you care about Syria, please give what you can. Every bit helps!

and somehow it's wrong that Russia has a tiny, tiny base in Syria while it's completely ok that the USA has a kickass base in Bahrian

Hanna, please forget about superpower USSR/Russia. Its influence belongs in the past (or distant future?) We are still making missiles, but that's it.
Бабло победило...

My husband has a theory that Obama is actually playing a complex game of "chess" and orchestrating the vote with Congress so that the air strike initiative will fail. He says that Obama is only trying to appear "strong" but that in reality the president has no intention of attacking Syria.

Personally, I hope he's right. But the cynical side of me thinks that US military action in Syria is inevitable, given our track record in the Middle East.

By the way, I did not support the war with Iraq, but I did support the war with Afghanistan (post 9/11) because I thought it would be a "limited engagement," that we would get Osama Bin Laden and then get out of there. Ten years later Osama was still breathing and the Taliban was as strong as ever, while untold thousands of innocent people were dead.

So now, I regret that we invaded Afghanistan and I do not believe that engaging Syria will be a stroll in the park as some people are suggesting, and I detest words like "humanitarian intervention," "punitive measures," "sending Assad a message" or "surgical strike." Many experts and military brass even say that if we invade Syria it will turn into a prolonged engagement, that it will only further destabilize the region and that no one will gain from it except those who make their profits from feeding the war machine.

Raytheon Company Common Stock Stock Chart | RTN Interactive Chart - Yahoo! Finance

Speaking of the profits to be gained from military involvement, Raytheon stock is already up by almost 20% - and that is just from the threat of war. Raytheon, as some of you probably know, manufactures Tomahawk missiles. Once an airstrike is formally announced, you can expect to see stocks go through the roof. I'm sure investors are already wetting their pants in anticipation.

Syria strike could bring Raytheon payday - Austin Wright - POLITICO.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3836276.html

Kerry Admits Possibility of 'Boots on the Ground' in Syria | Common Dreams

Kerry Admits Possibility of 'Boots on the Ground' in Syria:

Asked by Senate Robert Menendez (D-NJ) whether or not language should be inserted in a congressional authorization for an attack on Syria that would prohibit 'U.S. boots on the ground,' U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that would not be good idea. Kerry stammered, and then declared—"in the event Syria imploded, for instance"—that he wouldn't want to take that option "off the table" by inserting such a clause.

The exchange occurred as Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff Adm. Martin Dempsey delivered testimony about the Obama administration's push for military action—also known as war—against Syria before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday.

In a follow-up question on the issue, Kerry said he wanted to "shut the door" on the impression left by his previous answer regarding boots on the ground.

When Kerry said "shut the door", what he means is "don't let anyone know what we're planning". Kerry, McCain, and Obama wanna creep into Syria with a "limited" strike, then escalate it into a "boots on ground" war.
It's easier to get Americans to agree to a "surgical" strike... then they can create a new story to get Americans to agree to a war.
Bullies at school use that same strategy.

Why I think President Obama doesn't really want to attack Syria

By seeking Congressional approval, and forcefully making the case for intervention, President Obama is goading Congressional Republicans into giving him an excuse to keep American cruise missiles out of Syria and avoid provoking a skittish Iran. And in deferring to the legislature, President Obama will ensure that future presidents will be expected to consult Congress before embarking on unilateral military excursions, and suffer the political consequences for failing to do so.

This writer takes the same view as my husband and a few other people I have spoken with lately, who believe that Obama is actually playing a master game of chess with Congress and secretly has no intention of military involvement in Syria.

Personally, I hope he's right, but given America's track record as well as Obama's and John Kerry's constant hammering of their invasion agenda, I am inclined to doubt it.