Thread: Syria

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Here's my very serious comment. If someone thinks the US is ultimately behind just about any turmoil that happens on our planet, that is called paranoia.

If that's your comment it is not very relevant, since nobody here has made any such claim.

The whole discussion stems from the fact that I and a few others stated that we believe that evidence seem to be indicating that the US together with certain EU countries might have a finger in supporting the rebels in Syria through things like favourable media cover, weapons (possibly), and local logistics/communication support. Nobody is denying that there are plenty of locals who are unhappy.

However as reported by channels like RT, there are also plenty of locals who think that the rebels are troublemakers/terrorists/opportunists and are happy with the system as it is, or prefer gradual change.
There is so much propaganda going on in both camps that I doubt even the Syrians themselves understand the situation and have an idea of who wants what.

I saw a story which claimed that the majority of Syria's Christians were behind Assad, for example, stating some credible sounding reasons for this, and interviewed regular people who expressed their views with passion.

I also made a comparison with Bahrain which has also experienced a very passionate Arab spring which ended in brutal suppression in this mini country that happens to be the host of a large US navy base. 1500 Saudi troops entered Bahrain fully armed and stopped the protests. Hundreds have died (which is a very large number per capita, in a country as small as Bahrain). The story is totally ignored in Western media whereas the coverage of Syria is non stop. Yet the countries are fighting for exactly the same things - democracy or more political influence for regular people and improved social justice. There has been torture, disappearences and killings.

Armored tanks patrolled villages on the outskirts of Manama and forces shot tear gas canisters at demonstrators around the city as the government sought to suppress further demonstrations and the retaking of Pearl Square, the site of the uprising one year ago today. The Bahraini government has received continued support from the US and UK throughout the year-long crackdown, including arms sales. Al-jazeera (Photo: Reuters)

***

Reuters reports:
Armored vehicles patrolled Bahrain's capital on Tuesday in a security clampdown to deter protesters after overnight clashes outside Manama on the first anniversary of a forcibly suppressed pro-democracy uprising.

Originally Posted by Hanna

evidence seem to be indicating that the US together with certain EU countries might have a finger in supporting the rebels in Syria

Evidence you say? I think we don't have any reliable evidence whatsoever. We are pretty much left out to interpret the situation as we see fit. I personally see more involvement of the EU countries in the Arab spring and less involvement of the US. The most prominent example - Egypt, which government had been loyal to the US for so many years. There was absolutely no reason for the US to change the situation to what it is now. Or was it? But, still there is strong opinion that the US is behind all those events. And how it is explained? Because, the US is dictating each and every European government what to do, so apparently every action the EU countries take would ultimately be devised by the US. All the economic tensions (which ultimately drive the big politics and military interventions) between the EU and US are just being written off. That means the logic stops and the paranoia rules. Does it make sense?

Now, to the point the Syrian uprising is inspired from outside of the country. You see, the foreign politics is all about that. It's not really about "let's leave each other to do what they want" as you go on insisting. There's simply no such thing. The countries merge and divide, conquer each other and gain independence over time. It is a very complex process and what a modern patriot would perceive as his motherland, was in fact an enemy of his ancestors who died in an attempt to keep independence, but failed. There seems to be no indication that won't happen in the future. For the very least, the countries inspire revolts in the other countries for their benefits. Some people say Kaiser Germany financed the driving forces of both Russian revolutions of 1917 during the WWI to topple Russian government and weaken Russian Army. And they succeeded as Russia withdrew from the WWI as soon as bolsheviks came to power. That was their first decree - the Decree on Peace. This way Germany eliminated their second front and were able to continue the war. The evidence, eh? But, subsequently all that was perceived as a very positive step in Russia. And, later on bolsheviks not only inspired revolts, but provided very real military intervention in the countries which comprised the Russian Empire. Of course, for the benefits of the workers and the peasants. But, then you think there was a lot of positive things in the USSR. So far so good for the "let's just leave each other's countries alone"? Such things, as much as other meaningless terms such as "national interests", do not exist in the real world.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Evidence you say? I think we don't have any reliable evidence whatsoever.

There are already plenty of reports from locals that the SAS and SBS are operating in the area.
It is virtually guaranteed that they do - this is exactly the type of situation that those operations exist for. They'd lose their funding if they did not get in there, and get some action going that serves the UKs interests.

That aside - there is a GIGANTIC Wikileaks email archive relating solely to Syria being released onto Wikileaks today.
It is said to be hugely embarassing not only for Syria but for a number of Western powers.

So let's see how much evidence there is, or isn't! I'd say this is a considerably more violent take on the "colour revolutions" and how much foreign influence was behind this is a question that is under debate, as far as I understand it.

I think the Syrians will find that they were considerably better off BEFORE any Western invasion, or before letting the country descend into total chaos and lawlessness. No Syrians qualified for refugee status in the EU prior to this - which essentially means that the treatment of people in Syria (including dissidents) was considered to be so lenient that there was no reason why any would-be refugee could not be sent straight home - i.e. there was no point for them to claim asylum. This, to me, means there was no huge problem with a draconian state that persecuted people. As a comparison, a politically active Kurd from Turkey who seeks political asylum, ususually gets it eventually. Same with anyone who had problems with the state in the USSR, in the 80s, or people from Uzbekistan today, who claim to be religious moslems. The situation in Syria was that people could be members of opposition groups and nothing much happened.

Originally Posted by Yale Underground Journal of Politics

Despite decades of political repression in Syria, Harvard graduate and Arabic teacher Richard Cozzens notes the complete absence of palpable tension during his stays in Syria from 2005-2009. Quite the opposite, he pointed to visible Syrian unity. “People were waving flags and putting up pro-government signs and propaganda on a constant basis.” The people loved Assad. He was perceived as a charismatic leader who ushered in a wave of growing consumerism that was altogether foreign during his father’s control. After the invasion of Iraq, Syrians were united by their hatred of President Bush. They rallied behind intense patriotism; Assad’s anti-Bush declarations fueled his popularity as national pride soared.

The question is, what happened next. They all changed their mind - why?

Originally Posted by Hanna

The question is, what happened next. They all changed their mind - why?

Have they all loved Assad and now they all hate him?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Have they all loved Assad and now they all hate him?

It is a manner of speech as you very well know.

Originally Posted by Hanna

It is a manner of speech as you very well know.

Some people were happy with Assad and some were not. The popularity of a politician changes as the events occur and the politician's reaction is scrutinized by the public. Putin was much more popular in 2005-2009 than he is in 2012. Is that the evidence for the SAS and SBS working actively in Moscow? Yeltzin was very popular in 1991 and was very much unpopular several years later. The question is, what happened next. They all changed their mind - why?

Based on what your quote said, "Assad’s anti-Bush declarations fueled his popularity as national pride soared." So, Bush is not in the office for long time. A gazillion of other things happened in Syria and other countries in the region. Some people disliked the way Assad treated "the bandits and hooligans" as the official propaganda mentioned, some military officers left the army and joined the insurgents, and many more things which might have affected the popularity of Assad. And if you absolutely write off all domestic reasons, why the US again? Why not Israel, for a change? Israel and Syria are not the best friends, won't you think? Assad threatened to attack Israel, if foreign countries intervene, remember? So, wouldn't that be in the best interest of Israel to support the seemingly domestic revolt in Syria so that Assad steps down? All I'm saying is that 'all roads lead to Rome' is an overly-simplistic approach. And paranoid, yes.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Why not Israel, for a change? Israel and Syria are not the best friends, won't you think?

Lol because Quatar and Turkey(especially under Erdogan) are not the best friends of Israel either. Israel seems to try to be uninvolved unlike the USA and Turkey.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Assad threatened to attack Israel, if foreign countries intervene, remember? So, wouldn't that be in the best interest of Israel to support the seemingly domestic revolt in Syria so that Assad steps down? All I'm saying is that 'all roads lead to Rome' is an overly-simplistic approach. And paranoid, yes.

Israel has a 30-years old signed armistice with Syria. Why would it need Assad removed and islamists at power?

The Syrian regime has strong opposition and under pressure - it cannot make a successful invasion in Israel at any rate. Assad is also well influenced by Russia.

Bombing of Syria on the other hand may lead to unpredictable consequences for Israel - for example, involvement of Iran, involvement of Israel in the war etc.


But there is one serious reason why Israel may consider supporting the USA the best way. We all know that the USA will win this conflict. They will bomb Syria, then bomb Iran, then they will breakup Russia and China. I have no doubt that this will happen soon. And being on the side of the winners is always beneficial. If Israel sided with the USSR during the Cold War, there would be no Israel by now.