Thread: Syria

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.

Originally Posted by Anixx

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

Excellent question. And why the US would want Assad removed and the islamists at power? Why the US would want Mubarak removed and islamists at power?

I'm not 100% thrilled with what the US was and is doing, but to say the US is responsible for just about anything (which I think is implied from some posts of some people on this forum) is paranoia.

Originally Posted by Anixx

The Syrian regime has strong opposition and under pressure - it cannot make a successful invasion in Israel at any rate.

I would agree with you here, Syria could probably not make a successful invasion right now, and it probably couldn't make it around 2005-2009 either despite the alleged popularity of Assad back then. But "attacking" does not necessarily mean "invasion". Attacking would be provoking Israel for retaliation and thus igniting the entire Middle East and possibly other regions.

Originally Posted by Anixx

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.

I agree, so there would probably be no bombing, only the civil war.

Originally Posted by Anixx

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.

That is a scenario which I'm afraid of. Back in December last year (Protests in Syria) I tried to discuss it, but the conversation kind of switched to.. as usual. You see, I think if the US is involved in just another big conflict, it will not win it. There has been lots of political work done to popularize the opinion that the US is trying to own every corner of the world, enough for most people on the plant to dislike it. On the other hand, the economy of the US probably incapable of taking on such huge undertaking. At the same time, Americans are tired of the situation when the country is constantly at war, the public money is spent lavishly on nothing productive and people are constantly dying somewhere on the other side of the globe for many years. The real motivation of 'fighting terrorism' is something of the past. Also, take into consideration other purely technical economic factors like the real dollar value, huge deficit, etc. Meaning, a big war might likely cause the shift of the entire global economic focus, from the countries involved and devastated by the war and the countries uninvolved or involved to the lesser extent. Something similar to the outcome of the previous world wars - European Empires lost the focus as it had shifted to the less involved/devastated US. Now, let's look at the countries which are going to be actively involved in the WWIII: Middle East (oil suppliers), the US, Israel, China, Russia. All these countries would eventually lose their economic power (and might even be divided). However, I agree the NATO would most likely be the winner (with the US ultimately losing dominance). Who stays in the global economic game? Germany, France, Italy. Most notably - Germany (as it is presently economically dominant even under the very tough conditions). Germany is keeping relatively quiet, but that is who I think is behind the Arab Spring. (And 9/11 for that matter.) Germany does not talk much - it acts. And I think it will be the ultimate winner.

Originally Posted by Anixx

If Israel sided with the USSR during the Cold War, there would be no Israel by now.

An interesting thought, maybe a bit off topic. I think you mean that the capitalist US is crushing the socialistic regimes? You see, as far as I know, Israel had been sided with the USSR at the earlier stages - the secular Jews were, at their majority, socialists. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong between the USSR and Israel, maybe Israel was a way too nationalist, or the formation of Israel inspired nationalistic Jewish movement inside the USSR, which was crushed by Stalin, and Israel did not like that.. not sure. Anyway, I think the nationalistic considerations prevail any other in Israel, so Israel would probably be less sensitive to the socialism-capitalism shift. Meaning, there would still be Israel by now.

Originally Posted by Anixx

...They... will breakup Russia and China. I have no doubt that this will happen soon.

Sounds like execrable abomination masterminded and perpetrated by nefarious miscreants. Any chance you could shed light on details of these mendacious machinations. I mean when and how it is doomed to occur. What is the source of your apocalyptical certainty, btw. Channeling?