Thread: Syria

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 Crocodile

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?

It can be definitely seen that the US vocally supported the overthrow of Mubarak and Israel was against that (they even issued an official call to the European powers to keep Mubarak at power).
This is a fact. Now why it is so? This is another, more difficult question. But the Islamists are generally considered more right-wing regimes than the socialists and the secular nationalists. And the USA usually supports the right.
This is not the first time the USA supported islamists. They did so in Afghanistan, in Chechnya, in Kosovo, in Libya etc etc. Their most close allies are the fundamentalist monarchies of the Persian gulf.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

Have you seen the film "Revolution.com - USA: The Conquest of the East"? The USA are the professional revolution and rebellion exporters worldwide, in Asia, in Africa, in Europe and in Latin America.
Even if somebody does the dirty work, the USA supports them in international organizations and with money.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

There is no need (and ability) for Syria to engage in war with Israel in peacetime. As I already said, the Syrian regime is weak, has strong domestic enemies and values good relations with Russia. Syrian nuclear objects had been attacked by Israel about 2007 but Syria did not make any retaliation. They missed a good opportunity to "ignite the entire middle East" if this was their aim. But it is not.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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

I am not sure in that. Israel definitely does not want to be involved but for the West attack on Israel would be an excellent PR excuse for full-scale invasion in both Syria and Iran.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

LOL. It does not matter what the people wants in the USA. No US political force as of now promotes non-involvement. The only thing that can make the US retreat are the heavy losses among ordinary people. But since Vietnam war the army in the US is not conscripted and the losses are negligibly small (less than of a comparable group of civilians). With the Obama's technology of non-contact war (for which he is widely praised) the costs become negligible as well.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

You possibly do not understand what keeps the value of dollar. It is instability in every country except the USA. With any war and crisis in any part of the world the value of dollar sharply rises. The investors have to take their money from Middle East, Asia, Europe and invest them in the "safe heaven" of American treasuries and other dollar-valued assets. This way any war without exception is highly profitable for US economy. Even more profitable would be instability in Russia, China or other big country.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

The US has so much military superiority over every country in the world except maybe China and Russia that there is no possibility of a "big war" at all. Any US military involvement is just one-way beating.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

This is completely senseless idea. Germany is under strict US control. USA actually still has Germany occupied. And any instability in Europe as I said before only means that the money will leave it for the USA.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

No. The Jews consciously choose the USA because they expected it to win the Cold War.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

My impression is that the US essentially "bought" Israel's support, with the backing of American Jews and evangelical Christians. And that is probably very lucky for Israel...

They got aid, gifts, weapons etc, etc... Not that the USSR could not have supplied that, but perhaps not immediately at the time when Israel needed it the most, in the very early days of the new state, when the USSR too, was in a bad condition after the War. Israel got into wars early on in its history and could not be too fussy about who to liaise with, when its very survival as a nation was at stake. That's my personal guess based on what little I know of Israels history.

I also think the USSR would have judged Israel to be behaving in an imperialistic way after it annexed the West Bank... The PLO was socialist, and so was Syria. I guess the USSR from an ideological standpoint did not have much choice other than to support the obvious socialists and/or "imperialistically opressed" party in the conflict, i.e. the Palestinians. Plus, they were already supporting several socialist Arab states and could not very well support the arch enemy of these countries at the same time!

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

Nobody has been claiming that, other than you yourself, when making that accusation towards me!

There are no doubt plenty of popular movements or conflicts going on around the globe that the US have no finger in supporting. I do not see the US trying to influence the EU greatly in how to solve the Euro crisis (good!) and the US does not show any interest in several long running conflicts in Africa. The US has not had any opportunity to get involved in most of the internal problems in China. Neither is it supporting either side or manipulating at all in the long running Falklands saga.

However, in the case of Syria, I believe that the US and UK are involved, based on reports, and based on the very one-sided media coverage. The same was (obviously) true in the case of Libya.

There have been plenty of suggestions about US involvement in revolutions etc, etc recently, as I said earlier. Organising coups and uprisings, is and has been standard fare for US intelligence agencies for many decades. It is well known and documented that this has happened in South and Central America and I would be very surprised if you are not aware of this fact.

Several eyewitnesses report having seen SAS operatives in Syria, and that the rebels are covertly armed by Western forces.

There is nothing paranoid in saying that there usually is no smoke without fire, which is all I am doing. I'll await the proof that might well come with the latest Wikileaks!

The final point on this is that the press and state officials in both Russia and China seem to be holding the same opinions, along with the majority of the poulation there. Plus no doubt many, many more countries that I do not keep track of.
So if I am paranoid I am in good company with the world's future super power, China, and a country that has excellent political analysts and probably has much better insight in Syria than any other major power (Russia).

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

In this, I agree with you. I think "regular" Americans to a large degree are taken for a ride by a government that does not necessarily represent their best interests and that allows media to manipulate them.

These wars and constant manipulations around the world is not in the economic interests of the nation, or its people. They are however in the interest of large corporations that have managed to manipulate the government and even public opinion. I believe that the US is largely run by its multinational corporations, contrary to the interests of its people.

Compare with the USSR and its various undertakings, such as the Afghanistan war and economically supporting regimes around the world, like North Korea and Cuba. How did this help regular citizens? Not at all, probably, but I suppose some elite group(s) somewhere benefited from what was going on (while some of it might have been motivated by a feeling of being under constant threat and having to maximise the number of allies and buffer states.)

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?

Originally Posted by diogen_

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?

The US has reliable technologies for breaking up other countries and overthrowing governments. They can organize riots, they can buy elites, they can bomb. The technology is active and at the production line.

Originally Posted by Anixx

The US has reliable technologies for breaking up other countries and overthrowing governments. They can organize riots, they can buy elites, they can bomb. The technology is active and at the production line.

Still not so fast as it takes.

I think every big government could do that.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Still not so fast as it takes.

I think every big government could do that.

I do not think so. Only the US has the necessary technologies and experience. I know no other country that removed a government of another country other than the US which did it tens times.

Originally Posted by Anixx

The US has reliable technologies for breaking up other countries and overthrowing governments. They can organize riots, they can buy elites, they can bomb. The technology is active and at the production line.

OK.It means you don’t have any real evidence concerning US plans to break up China and Russia beside figments of your imagination that potentially they can do it, do you?

Originally Posted by diogen_

OK.It means you don’t have any real evidence concerning US plans to break up China and Russia beside figments of your imagination that potentially they can do it, do you?

Well I never made this claim, it seems to be an idea that some Russians subscribe to, rightly or wrongly. So I will not try to justify it because I have not idea or proof about whether it might be true. I can speculate though!

But it doesn't seem very unrealistic to me though. The US must have been jubilant when the USSR fell apart, and it has been very keen to encourage ex Soviet states distance themselves from Russia as much as possible since then...

Obviously there is some genuine local resentment in certain ex Soviet countries against Russia, but many agencies of the USA have been quite happy about this and made its best to reinforce and increase such feelings. I understand that there has been plenty of funding of all sorts of activities in ex Soviet republics, that essentially mount up to anti-Russia sentiments among those involved. Not to mention sponsoring of media with a fairly obvious angle.

As for China, this is probably a MAJOR reason why China chooses to stick with its media and internet censorship programs - as unpalatable as it is.
They've seen what happened in other countries when media is opened up - i.e. first an relentless stream of complaints from locals that demoralise everyone... then foreign capital moves in. Sweden made this type of change - scrapped state control over TV. Now, there is a dominance of foreign owned TV stations that angle

This is probably also the reason behind the Russian requirement for foreign sponsored organisations to register etc.