Thread: Syria

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Maybe. Officially, the главная вина of Syria (as far as I know) is its support of Hezbollah, which does NOT recognize Israel's right to continue existing.

Look. This is a first sane comment here from the pro-US side. And this is a valid argument.
But I am quite sure that

- nobody ever put any real pressure on Syria to discontinue the support for Hezbollah. The most current pressure is for that Assad to resign.

- Hezbollah is accused by the UN in killing the Lebanon prime minister. As far as I know, this this the most heavy charge against Hezbollah by the UN. Hezbollah promised to cooperate in investigation

- Hezbollah positions itself as a patriotic pro-Lebanon party. They do not declare an aim to invade Israel. There was a kidnapping incident that provoked the last Israel-Hezbollah war but Hezbollah came under heavy criticism in Lebanon after that
and Nasralla had to apologize before the Lebanon public saying that they would not do so if they knew it will lead to a war with Israel.

- When asked Nasralla said he is not against peace with Israel if Israel reaches a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Notice also that the most close US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Bahrain do not recognize Israel as well. Should not the US be bombed for support of them?

It's quite interesting that the USA and UK are putting increasingly more pressure on Russia about Syria. Kudos to Putin for standing up against pressure. I for one am not scared of a Russia that dares to show a bit of spine. We need some influence from the East to balance the out-of-control influence from the West. Can't say about the internal politics of Russia, but the foreign policies, at least, are good at the moment, I think.

It is interesting that media in "Western" countries are singling out Russia as the obstruction to intervention or whaterver it is that NATO would like to do in Syria. At the same time they are not critisizing China as much. Is it a case of "don't dare to bite the hand that feeds you...?" (I am thinking about the enormous debt of the USA to China..) Or is it something else? Or is Russia a bigger obstacle for some reason... nukes? better relationship with Syria than what China has? I hope Putin will not let his vote be bought, or do some underhanded compromise in this matter! The problems that the Syrian people are having will only get worse if Nato & co get involved.

Revealed: CIA secretly operates on Syrian border, supplies arms to rebels — RT

Probably Russia sells more weapon to Syria, has a sea base there (there are no ships permanently), arranges war exercises near the Syrian shore.

Думаю, что они задавят Сирию и без санкции Совета Безопасности ООН. Там же боевиков около 10 000 и финансирование практически без ограничений. А у Сирии ограничены и людские и финансовые ресурсы (и снабжение).
России остаётся только сохранять лицо, не меняя позицию в ООН. Как говорится, делай, что должно, и будь, что будет.

Originally Posted by Юрка

Думаю, что они задавят Сирию и без санкции Совета Безопасности ООН. Там же боевиков около 10 000 и финансирование практически без ограничений. А у Сирии ограничены и людские и финансовые ресурсы (и снабжение).
России остаётся только сохранять лицо, не меняя позицию в ООН. Как говорится, делай, что должно, и будь, что будет.

Опыт показывает, что без прямого военного вмешательства обычно не обойтись.

Never seen such an extreme propaganda war as in the case of Syria!
The killings of the rebels are reported as killings of the government....
The creepy thing is that LOTS of people obviously support the current government, or the other side would have won over a year ago. Whole cities and ethnic groups, no doubt about it.

Kudos to Russia for staying impartial and not jumping on the propaganda bandwagon.

The UK is not a bit better than the US in this particular situation. Compare the old Beeb, with RT. One of them is lying, and I'd say that in this particular case it is actually the beeb. I swear not to pay my licence fee when I am back in the UK! I refuse to support their angled reporting and propaganda war. The BBC is impartial up to a point, but when the government has a clear agenda, they step in line which is what's happened here....

And the agenda of the US, UK and their European fan club couldn't be more clear.

They've found a new formula it seems, for how to take down a regime they don't like, without even going to war. This is Libya take 2, only this regime is not particularly bad and there were only a very small group of rebels when this started out. Now, through the media war and covert actions and stirring up of the situation by the SAS, CIA and lord knows who else... it's a civil war.

Arm some rebels and start a God-awful propaganda war that is out of all proportions, including blatant lies and horrendous exaggerations.

I wonder which regime is next?

Originally Posted by Hanna

I wonder which regime is next?

Iran, obviously. They are trynig to perform this thrick with Russia constantly, but it doesn't work for for now. I wonder for how long?

Originally Posted by Basil77

Iran, obviously. They are trynig to perform this thrick with Russia constantly, but it doesn't work for for now. I wonder for how long?

No one really knows. They have threatened Iran for almost seven years. And no one expected the attack on Lybia.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Never seen such an extreme propaganda war as in the case of Syria!
The killings of the rebels are reported as killings of the government....
The creepy thing is that LOTS of people obviously support the current government, or the other side would have won over a year ago. Whole cities and ethnic groups, no doubt about it.

The same was against Iraq in 1990-91 and in 2002-2003, against Serbs during the whole decade from 1991 to 1999 and in many other cases. Unfortunately, it's a norm, not an exception. The goal of media is not to inform the people, but to change their mind in a necessary way.

Kudos to Russia for staying impartial and not jumping on the propaganda bandwagon.

Russia is not completely impartial. It sells weapon to the Syrian government and it blocks all the resolutions against Syria in the UN. The media cover of the events is rather pregovernmental too.

Originally Posted by Marcus

The same was against Iraq in 1990-91 and in 2002-2003, against Serbs during the whole decade from 1991 to 1999 and in many other cases. Unfortunately, it's a norm, not an exception. The goal of media is not to inform the people, but to change their mind in a necessary way.

Russia is not completely impartial. It sells weapon to the Syrian government and it blocks all the resolutions against Syria in the UN. The media cover of the events is rather pregovernmental too.

Yes, you are probably right, but in the case of the Serbs, I simply did not see it. It was just at the time when new human rights abuses by socialist governments were "discovered" practically every week. I was totally fed up and disillusioned with all of it and just ignored any news to do with Eastern Europe... The other problem was that I had not been aware that Yugoslavia consisted of so many different countries. It was pretty confusing unless you had the time and interest to get up to speed on the background, which I did not at the time. But previously nobody every talked about separate nations there, just of Yugoslavians, the Adriatic coast etc. When media started to talk about "ethnic cleansing" and concentration camps, they did not leave much room for sympathising with the Serbs even though they they were Christians, Slavs etc, etc.
Back in the 1990s there was no access to alternative news sources like we can find online today.

Iraq - Yes, I remember that I did not believe that Iraqi soldiers had yanked Kuwait babies out of incubators out of sheer spite, or that surrendering Iraqis in the second Gulf War had asked the Americans for a Big Mac when surrendering... The propaganda onslaught was pretty all encompassing and there was no access to anything else.

I agree that RT is NOT a neutral source of news. I like it anyway, but it is obvious that they have a few agendas going on, like a small paypack on the UK for all the diplomatic troubles recently..... Gleeful reporting on the problems with the Euro and immigration in Western Europe.... An obsession with "Neo Nazis" in the Baltic... But there is a lot of substance behind the majority of their claims on these matters, even though it irritates me!

So you really think that Russia is secretly supporting the current regime despite their claims to the contrary? If I hear that some Russian special commandos are there and stirring up trouble I'll be just as annoyed as I feel with the UK/US about their involvement. If Russia is meddling they should stay out of it! Holding up existing contracts and obligation is not meddling though. They could not have anticipated this when they agreed to service helicopters or set up the Russian naval port there. But it seems to me that Russia is making an effort to try to stay out of it even though it had friendly relations with Syria in the past.

Originally Posted by Basil77

Iran, obviously. They are trynig to perform this thrick with Russia constantly, but it doesn't work for for now. I wonder for how long?

Yes, I guess Russia is a bit vulnerable to that..... First the Soviet states fell away for better or worse, and then there was troubles in the "outskirts" of Russia proper and the Chechen war....
Even the UK is not immune, with the Scots and sometimes Northern Ireland sometimes talking seriously of going their own way.

Since Russia has basically never shown the slightest bit of aggression towards my country, and since I largely like the people and the culture, I really want to see Russia as a confident country with internal stability.... I guess to some extent Russia can "buy" the loyalty of the outer regions with oil money...
And why not try some nationalistic campaigns....
It seems like lunacy for parts of Russia to break away... Isn't most of the country supported out of Moscow and the central regions anyway? Thy couldn't even extract their oil and transport their gas with out central help, could they? Do people see this as a risk, I mean the Russian Federation breaking up in a similar way to the USSR?


And in case anyone was in any doubt about what I have been saying...

Britain’s former Special Air Service (SAS) commandos are reportedly training armed opposition groups fighting against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, reports say.

The Daily Mail and Sunday Express have revealed that the mercenaries have set up training camps in Iraq and on the Syrian border for the armed rebels.

British army sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, have said the militants are receiving instructions in military tactics, weapons handling and communications systems.

Groups of 50 militants at a time are being trained by two Mideast-based private security firms which employ former SAS personnel.

More than 300 rebel forces have completed the commando training program, and are said to account for a number of the opposition’s combatant units fighting Syrian security forces in Damascus.

Britain has also placed more than 600 troops on standby over the unrest in Syria.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague says London should be acting outside the UN Security Council and step up its support for militant groups in Syria.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I wonder which regime is next?

No denying, one of the remaining rogue states.* The “social disposition” is absolutely straightforward, there’s the open society and its enemies (Sir Karl Raimund Popper). The enemies, aka rogues, want to destroy the open society by hook or by crook and forcefully impose their evil will on “openers” and other human animals. It’s social darwinism after all.

*Rogue state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by diogen_

No denying, one of the remaining rogue states.* The “social disposition” is absolutely straightforward, there’s the open society and its enemies (Sir Karl Raimund Popper). The enemies, aka rogues, want to destroy the open society by hook or by crook and forcefully impose their evil will on “openers” and other human animals. It’s social darwinism after all.

*Rogue state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia article you are referring to, starts with the sentence

"Rogue state is a controversial term"

@Diogen
Did you notice the word "controversial" and the subsequent explanation of reservations of various groups about the phrase?

The term is a perfect example of propaganda. Everyone who doesn't see the world like yourself, is "mad", "rogue" or something similar...
You repeat it over and over for a few years until it becomes the truth.
After that, you've got the perfect excuse for going after your enemy with the blessing of the population who is "aware" (like yourself) of how "bad" the enemy is.

Goebbels wrote a book about how to execute this type of propaganda, and successfully used this technique to convince the Germans that the Jews were freaks, and to turn their back as they were sent off to forced labour or death.

You can't be serious coming to a forum full of Russians and making statements like this.
During the Cold War, all of the Eastern bloc countries, in particular the USSR were "Rogue" according the the US worldview. Cuba, North Korea among others are still viewed in this way by the USA, according to Wiki. So I take it you would have been quite happy to see an attack against their country leading to thousands or millions dead Russian, just because your own nation was governed according to a different ideology than theirs?

I'd recommend this book for you Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower

(Haven't read it myself, but it's linked to from the Wikipedia article you yourself quoted. )

@Hanna

Analyze the consequences. There are two possible outcomes.

1. Imperialism wins rogues. Life will be essentially like now i.e. more or less normal without global wars and social experiments. Proof: nothing has changed to the worse after some rogue states stopped being rogue and become “normal”.

2. Rouges win imperialists. In the case life will be a) similar to life under Communism or b)similar to life under Taliban. The latter was in Chechnya when it was de facto independent. Shariat law, human rights abuse, total censorship, drag traffic, killings of “ infidels”, religious oppression, absence of political freedom, corruption, clan system etc. Do you want to live under these conditions? I hardly believe so. As to the former scenario see the video:

Originally Posted by diogen_

@Hanna

Analyze the consequences. There are two possible outcomes.

1. Imperialism wins rogues. Life will be essentially like now i.e. more or less normal without global wars and social experiments. Proof: nothing has changed to the worse after some rogue states stopped being rogue and become “normal”.

2. Rouges win imperialists. In the case life will be a) similar to life under Communism or b)similar to life under Taliban. The latter was in Chechnya when it was de facto independent. Shariat law, human rights abuse, total censorship, drag traffic, killings of “ infidels”, religious oppression, absence of political freedom, corruption, clan system etc. Do you want to live under these conditions? I hardly believe so. As to the former scenario see the video:

What I would add to this is, there are people who don't want to live in rogue states themselves, but for some reason think those who already do should continue, and shouldn't be helped to turn their lives to the better. Neither of the Syrian regime supporters here would willingly move there and live under such a system.

Originally Posted by diogen_

Какая замечательная клюква. Ну и как положено, общечеловеки опять приписали Сталину "гибель одного человека - трагедия, гибель миллионов - статистика".

So you really think that Russia is secretly supporting the current regime despite their claims to the contrary? If I hear that some Russian special commandos are there and stirring up trouble I'll be just as annoyed as I feel with the UK/US about their involvement. If Russia is meddling they should stay out of it! Holding up existing contracts and obligation is not meddling though. They could not have anticipated this when they agreed to service helicopters or set up the Russian naval port there. But it seems to me that Russia is making an effort to try to stay out of it even though it had friendly relations with Syria in the past.

If you mean this, then Russia is not involved, at least there is no any evidence. But even acomplishing previous contracts is a support in this situation. I'm proud of my country in Syria as much as I was ashamed in the case of Lybia.

It seems like lunacy for parts of Russia to break away... Isn't most of the country supported out of Moscow and the central regions anyway? Thy couldn't even extract their oil and transport their gas with out central help, could they?

The same could be said about the former Soviet republics.

Do people see this as a risk, I mean the Russian Federation breaking up in a similar way to the USSR?

Sure.

That's what the Russian state information channel says about Syria
Вести.Ru: новости, видео и фото дня
Rebels are trained and armed in Turkey and other countries and sent to Syria. I consider that an offense against Syria.
The Russian ambassador to the UN Vitaliy Churkin:
http://www.vesti.ru/only_video.html?vid=434260

Originally Posted by Marcus

That's what the Russian state information channel says about Syria
Вести.Ru: новости, видео и фото дня
Rebels are trained and armed in Turkey and other countries and sent to Syria. I consider that an offense against Syria.
The Russian ambassador to the UN Vitaliy Churkin:
Виталий Чуркин:

Wait, are you saying Syrian regime troops are all trained solely in Syria, only use Syrian weapons, etc?

@diogen
In case you haven't noticed, the USA is deep into debt, the living standard is falling for all but the richest, and the popularity of the USA is rapidly decreasing around the world. The Chinese on the other hand, who literally spit on democracy and still call themselves Communist are owning you... The tables will turn in that relationship within your lifetime. I wouldn't want to be American when the Chinese decide that they had enough of arrogance, debt and war mongering from their debtor.

Of the Russians here, it is pretty clear that most are prepared to stand up for what the USSR did, apart from a few serious mistakes, cockups that most people condemn. Are you yourself willing to stand up for everything your country does and has done in the past... Slavery, Vietnam etc, etc.. ??
Let him who is free of sin cast the first stone, eh? I could paste a youtube about Americans burning children in Vietnam, spy drones or the shady dealings in South America. But I can't be fussed, sometimes it's just not worth it...

To each his own - feel free to hang on to your (IMHO outdated) worldview as long as you like, but are you sure you are in the right forum to express it?
If I came to a forum for learning English, and started spitting out venom about the US, UK and their respective history, wouldn't you think I was a bit rude?

Charlie Rose - Vitaly Churkin