UK joins Syrian invasion with material military support

With 'friends' with this perspective here, the Palestinians appear to have enemies passing themselves off as 'friends'.

 

Syrian rebels might target Israel next
Tuesday, March 12, 2013 | Ryan Jones

IsraelToday

Israeli army chief Gen. Benny Gantz on Monday warned that the Syrian rebel groups that America and Europe are now helping to arm and train might turn their hostility toward Israel after ousting the regime of dictator Bashar Assad.

"The situation in Syria has become unstable and incredibly dangerous," Gantz said at the 2013 Herzliya Conference. "Although the likelihood of war with Syria is low, the terrorist organizations fighting against Assad may see us as their next challenge."

Since the start of the Syrian civil war, Israel has warned that most of the rebel groups are backed by or branches of radical Islamist groups, including Al Qaeda, and their victory would only increase tensions along the Israel-Syria border.

Indeed, just last week Syrian rebels abducted 21 of the UN peacekeepers deployed to keep the Israel-Syria border quiet for the past 41 years. Those peacekeepers were subsequently released, but many more fled into Israel before they, too, could be taken.

On Saturday, Syrian rebels opened fire on UN troops, prompting a "very active review" into the safety of UN peacekeepers in the area. Israel's concern is that the UN will decide to pull the peacekeepers out just when they are needed most.

The entire situation is being viewed in Jerusalem as just another example of how Israel cannot trust international guarantees regarding its security, and therefore must not make major concessions that would compromise the safety of its citizens.

 

Israel today?

 

Already have, an Ive pointed out a few problems with it. Shall we discuss these?


Was Assad chosen ? Yes , he was, by himself and his executive.

Was he chosen by vote ? Yes, he was, by himself and his executive.

Did that vote meet the requirements of the People's Council of Syria ? Yes, it did, especially as council is arranged by, you guessed it, the ba'ath party.

Was that endorsement then approved by over 50% in a general referendum ? Yes , it was, in a referendum where no other choices are possible .

Did his selection meet with all the requirements of the Syrian Constitution ? Yes, it did. especially as the const, is controlled by, you guessed it, the ba'ath party.

Was Assad therefore elected ? Yes, he was, by himself..

Does Syria run its presidential processes according to the wishes of normal decent human beings anywhere and the , so-called , democratic ' principles ' of the West ? Don't be so dumb.

There were no candidatures allowed in any case.

Tell the forum again that Assad was elected, please. In fact explain to us why Assad and the ba'ath party should allow only the ba'ath party to have a say in Syria.

 

Fascinating, and Hamas agrees with my perspective. Isnt that game set match?

 

Hamas is on the same side as you, Shimon Perez, and Saudi warlords, and the British and American state terrorists?

Somehow I doubt this...

 

Hamas opposes Assad, as I do. Arent they palestinians?

 

Peres The Israeli Ghandi? http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...eres-urges-syria-intervention-arab-force.html

 

LOL, yeah it seems israelis and palestinians both oppose Assad. Where does that leave you supporting dictators?

 

Ah, so you really meant that Assad wasn't elected by the West ! Ho ho ho Neither was Hamas so the West immediately launched a coup against it. What you really meant was that Assad's is not a managed democracy of the sort that you like to call ' democratic' whilst ignoring the hypocrisy of your own elections which pay lip-service to ' democracy ' but can only be won by a multi-millionaire who cow-tows to neoZionist fascism

I posted the definition of 'elected'. You'd do well to read it again. Your Sailor's Hornpipe doesn't benefit from the little Western curtsey at the end. If foreign elections don't ape the system you've been conditioned by , well.......tough titty. Assad WAS elected - as you are now obliged to agree. Anything less would be trolling on the run.

 

I have agreed with you this entire thread.

A fabricated election victory means nothing and cannot fool anyone.

It is nothing new for dictators to attempt to create the image of democracy when there is none, as in this case.

If there are no other options, there can be no claim of democracy, very simple.

If this man would finally accept that his people have a right to decide what they want no matter what that entails (and whether it is pro-Israel or not), then he would simply step down. But he won't. He is no different than other meglomaniacs like Ghadaffi.

The sad thing is that we have Egyptians on this thread who themselves are finally free of their dictator (for better or worse) but would not want the same for their Syrian brothers BECAUSE THEY DESPISE THE WEST MORE THAN THEY CARE FOR THEIR BROTHERS.

A real shame.

 

Your reading of it then clearly differs from mine and there are plenty of articles which state the fear and the difference in working and the reality that freedom fighters are moving over to this way.. Are you aware how Al Qaeda groups work? Do you think that they are there to make the people free? That is where my argument differs from yours. Al Qaeda are there for one reason only and that is to get as big a foothold as possible. War is the time they do it. Eliminating those who do not think their way while people are in a time of need is when they do it, using extreme perverted Islam to get fighters geed up.

That was not what the UN gave allowance for. There was only a UN resolution for the protection of civilians, not for deciding to change which tribes rules Libya and giving Al Qaeda a good foothold in while giving the French excellent oil deals, the UK other privileges and stopping Gadaffi's plans for trade with africa which would not have been economically beneficial to the US. This was an opportunist war by the West, nothing to do with protecting civilians and it is clearly due to the fact that this was an opportunistic war which was not legal that people doubt the motives of the West wherever it engages now.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria - all of them have helped to build a growing presence of Al Qaeda in the ME. Prior to the Russian/US war they were just a few nutters in jail. After 9/11 they were hated world wide having first tried to spread their word in Muslim countries and then shown that they would mass murder civilians. The US could have gone by the rule of law but instead had to go by retribution. Prior to the US's attack on Iraq there were no Al Qaeda there. When they attacked the US they had no credibility. What gave them credibility again was the US going off on a crusade against Muslims http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.hirsh.html

What I think you fail to understand is that such people stand no hope in hell of convincing anyone to be brainwashed by them in peacetime. They need war. Once they can get in, during war, they act as a cult.

You do not seem to get that Al Qaeda are the biggest threat to emerging democracies in the ME. Bigger than anything. As I said look at Afghanistan. Before the US unleased fanatics on them the veil was not by law, girls received a full education up to degree level and beyond. Women worked and I think there may even have been one or two in Parliament. Now look what has happened to them.

It may turn out that there are a lot more. This is the winners tale that there are a few more. There should not have been any civilian causalities, that is the point. You believe it was a war of the West against Gaddafi. Certainly it was but that war did not have the UN backing.

http://www.hrw.org/video/2012/10/18/libya-new-proof-mass-killings-gaddafi-death-site

You should also bare in mind that in order to get the UN resolutions we were being told that there were tens of thousands of civilians killed. False premise clearly.

killed by the West not an honest civil uprising as you suggest. You are giving your own extreme version of events. It does not tie in with reality.

The West of course uses the ME for it's own ends. Prior to removing Gaddafi he was fine for stopping refugees getting to Europe, keeping extremists at bay and of course torture on demand

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/09/06/delivered-enemy-hands-0

I was taking that from reports made during and just after the war. I am not finding that evidence at the moment

Firstly I do not buy your civil war thing. This was a take over by Western Powers and a good section of Gadaffi's own circle who saw that the end was near. Secondly I do not believe things are over there by any means. Thirdly I have a particular aversion to Al Qaeda types who have a stronghold in various places in Libya.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ast-pall-on-libyan-revolution/article8770768/

I never said he was. My argument with you is in your naive blindness that these revolutions while promoting Al Qaeda are going to result in anything resembling freedom and democracy. Now the issues concerning Syria are a more complex issue but imagining getting rid of the government there by annihilating them using as the prime warriors or even substantial Al Qaeda and expecting democracy or any kind of freedom at all is naive.

 

Ok so are you arguing for dictatorships instead?

 

1 and 1 does not make 3. I am going out now.

 

It can keep.

But I'd like to know what is the option except for people to remove a dictator even if other issues arise? You dislike the changes taking place apparently more than you dislike dictatorships. Egypt is doing ok, kinda, as is Tunisia and even in Libyia life goes on, so what gives?

 

Bollox. You just refuse to accept the Syrian election process. Assad was elected , legally elected according to the Syrian Constitution. He received over 50% of public support by referendum. You should realise that you're having severe credibility difficulties when neoZionist tub-thumpers come to your ...er.....support.

You're clearly wrong. You might have made an apologetic case for your inaccurate claim by noting that Assad went some way towards introducing multi-party democracy in 2012. Of course, that didn't suit the US of AIPAC/Zionist warmongers one little bit. Payments and promises had already been made. Geez, you even attempt to dissociate Israel from the subversion in your first- insulting- post. You're wrong there too. Hornpipe away. And don't forget your curtsey.

 

What do you mean ____ was elected ? Elected? Can you source the claim Moon? You ask source what? I say; ‘please source where you read or cut 'the west sponsored coup’. After that please define precisely what you meant by the ‘west’. Do you mean the US? Do you mean the US and its allies? Do you mean that the west (what ever that is) did not like Assad or Hamas? Hamas are terrorists and were recognized as such then the terrorists all the sudden tried to become a respectable political organization of which they are neither. So its no wonder that the west, if you mean the USA, didnt support (if didnt elect you meant something like did not support) a terrorist group!

I am starting to run out of time...lol

Ok lets see~ I think I have listed all the stuff ...oh yeah did you intend to say the USA (or ?) launched a coup against...was it Hamas or Assad or both? You did not deleniate which or both. Where did you read or fabricate all that ? The cryptic way your reply is worded is beyond confusing especially if the reader is not already permeated with Islamic/Arab propaganda or brainwashed by the same. I am serious, please clarify your claims, meaning this one and those forthcoming.

reva

 

LOL, no silly I dont accept the Syrian election process, and neither do the Syrians, how else do you think rebels are able to take nearly half the country in a few months? Indeed the Syrian constitution itself is a fraud of democracy. Which, clearly something you wont ever get, is one of the reasons for the civil war itself.

After decades, what exactly is some way? And end to the constant state of emergency? Did you forget that that was all that the protestors were complaining about before their suppression? Did you forget that Assads 'reforms' meant that as soon as few 'parliamentarians' spoke in critcism of the government they were arrested for interfering with the constitution?

As for US of AIPAC, payments and promises already made etc, thats just the usual conspiracy bs, you wont be backing it up any time soon so I can just ignore it.

Lastly what was insulting about my first post on this thread? Was it me calling the US of AIPAC crap? Moon? Moon? Please tell me, Im interested in having a reasonable discussion and want to apologise for any hurt feelings you may have suffered.

 

Which , of course, implies that you are aware that Syria does have an election process . Further, having seen the results- which have been linked to twice- you can't deny that Assad won that process. Ergo, Assad was elected.

Creation;

Feeling your collar tightening ?

That reminds me of the story about the headless rattlesnake .

 

Another one ? Are you seriously suggesting that Hamas was not elected as the government of Palestine ?

Further, are you seriously trying to change recorded history by challenging the facts of US of AIPAC/Zionist sponsoring of Fatah's attempted coup ?

 

Lol?

Is this an adult debate, or teenage text chat..

There you go, yet again, twisting things. At no time did I say I 'supported dictators'. What I did say is that my position here is similar to that of Russia. I trust that their postion has been more sensible and tempered, than the global dictators that you support. And you do, as you have conceded that you support the Saudi throat cutters, Israel, and Al Queda elements. Therefore, my position is one of neutrality for now, while you support the same sorts of murderers and state terrorists that would crush the Palestinians you say you support, if they could get away with it. Which they may try at some near point, and rest assured, you will be there, cheering on the IDF liberators, and calling Hamas 'terrorists'.

Pages ago, I asked you to back up your claim that most Syrians do not support their Gov.

As far as I can see, you have not done this.

I think you should do this.

Lol.

 

Re-Examining the Arab Spring

On Dec. 17, 2010, Mohammed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor, set himself on fire in a show of public protest. The self-immolation triggered unrest in Tunisia and ultimately the resignation of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. This was followed by unrest in a number of Arab countries that the global press dubbed the “Arab Spring.” The standard analysis of the situation was that oppressive regimes had been sitting on a volcano of liberal democratic discontent. The belief was that the Arab Spring was a political uprising by masses demanding liberal democratic reform and that this uprising, supported by Western democracies, would generate sweeping political change across the Arab world.

It is now more than six months since the beginning of the Arab Spring, and it is important to take stock of what has happened and what has not happened. The reasons for the widespread unrest go beyond the Arab world, although, obviously, the dynamics within that world are important in and of themselves. However, the belief in an Arab Spring helped shape European and American policies in the region and the world. If the assumptions of this past January and February prove insufficient or even wrong, then there will be regional and global consequences.

It is important to begin with the fact that, to this point, no regime has fallen in the Arab world. Individuals such as Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak have been replaced, but the regimes themselves, which represent the manner of governing, have not changed. Some regimes have come under massive attack but have not fallen, as in Libya, Syria and Yemen. And in many countries, such as Jordan, the unrest never amounted to a real threat to the regime. The kind of rapid and complete collapse that we saw in Eastern Europe in 1989 with the fall of communism has not happened in the Arab world. More important, what regime changes that might come of the civil wars in Libya and Syria are not going to be clearly victorious, those that are victorious are not going to be clearly democratic and those that are democratic are obviously not going to be liberal. The myth that beneath every Libyan is a French republican yearning to breathe free is dubious in the extreme.

Consider the case of Mubarak, who was forced from office and put on trial, although the regime — a mode of governing in which the military remains the main arbiter of the state — remains intact. Egypt is now governed by a committee of military commanders, all of whom had been part of Mubarak’s regime. Elections are coming, but the opposition is deeply divided between Islamists and secularists, and personalities and ideological divisions in turn divide these factions. The probability of a powerful democratic president emerging who controls the sprawling ministries in Cairo and the country’s security and military apparatus is slim, and the Egyptian military junta is already acting to suppress elements that are too radical and too unpredictable.

The important question is why these regimes have been able to survive. In a genuine revolution, the regime loses power. The anti-communist forces overwhelmed the Polish Communist government in 1989 regardless of the divisions within the opposition. The sitting regimes were not in a position to determine their own futures, let alone the futures of their countries. There was a transition, but they were not in control of it. Similarly, in 1979, when the Shah of Iran was overthrown, his military and security people were not the ones managing the transition after the shah left the country. They were the ones on trial. There was unrest in Egypt in January and February 2011, but the idea that it amounted to a revolution flew in the face of the reality of Egypt and of what revolutions actually look like.

Shaping the Western Narrative


There were three principles shaping the Western narrative on the Arab Spring. The first was that these regimes were overwhelmingly unpopular. The second was that the opposition represented the overwhelming will of the people. The third was that once the unrest began it was unstoppable. Add to all that the notion that social media facilitated the organization of the revolution and the belief that the region was in the midst of a radical transformation can be easily understood.

It was in Libya that these propositions created the most serious problems. Tunisia and Egypt were not subject to very much outside influence. Libya became the focus of a significant Western intervention. Moammar Gadhafi had ruled Libya for nearly 42 years. He could not have ruled for that long without substantial support. That didn’t mean he had majority support (or that he didn’t). It simply meant that the survival of his regime did not interest only a handful of people, but that a large network of Libyans benefitted from Gadhafi’s rule and stood to lose a great deal if he fell. They were prepared to fight for his regime.

The opposition to him was real, but its claim to represent the overwhelming majority of Libyan people was dubious. Many of the leaders had been part of the Gadhafi regime, and it is doubtful they were selected for their government posts because of their personal popularity. Others were members of tribes that were opposed to the regime but not particularly friendly to each other. Under the mythology of the Arab Spring, the eastern coalition represented the united rage of the Libyan people against Gadhafi’s oppression. Gadhafi was weak and isolated, wielding an army that was still loyal and could inflict terrible vengeance on the Libyan people. But if the West would demonstrate its ability to prevent slaughter in Benghazi, the military would realize its own isolation and defect to the rebels.

It didn’t happen that way. First, Gadhafi’s regime was more than simply a handful of people terrorizing the population. It was certainly a brutal regime, but it hadn’t survived for 42 years on that alone. It had substantial support in the military and among key tribes. Whether this was a majority is as unclear as whether the eastern coalition was a majority. But it was certainly a substantial group with much to fight for and a great deal to lose if the regime fell. So, contrary to expectations in the West, the regime has continued to fight and to retain the loyalty of a substantial number of people. Meanwhile, the eastern alliance has continued to survive under the protection of NATO but has been unable to form a united government or topple Gadhafi. Most important, it has always been a dubious assertion that what would emerge if the rebels did defeat Gadhafi would be a democratic regime, let alone a liberal democracy, and this has become increasingly obvious as the war has worn on. Whoever would replace Gadhafi would not clearly be superior to him, which is saying quite a lot.

A very similar process is taking place in Syria. There, the minority Alawite government of the al Assad family, which has ruled Syria for 41 years, is facing an uprising led by the majority Sunnis, or at least some segment of them. Again, the assumption was that the regime was illegitimate and therefore weak and would crumble in the face of concerted resistance. That assumption proved wrong. The al Assad regime may be running a minority government, but it has substantial support from a military of mostly Alawite officers leading a largely Sunni conscript force. The military has benefited tremendously from the Assad regime — indeed, it brought it to power. The one thing the al Assads were careful to do was to make it beneficial to the military and security services to remain loyal to the regime. So far, they largely have. The danger for the regime looking forward is if the growing strain on the Alawite-dominated army divisions leads to fissures within the Alawite community and in the army itself, raising the potential for a military coup.

In part, these Arab leaders have nowhere to go. The senior leadership of the military could be tried in The Hague, and the lower ranks are subject to rebel retribution. There is a rule in war, which is that you should always give your enemy room to retreat. The al Assad supporters, like the Gadhafi supporters and the supporters of Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh, have no room to retreat. So they have fought on for months, and it is not clear they will capitulate anytime soon.

Foreign governments, from the United States to Turkey, have expressed their exasperation with the Syrians, but none has seriously contemplated an intervention. There are two reasons for this: First, following the Libya intervention, everyone became more wary of assuming the weakness of Arab regimes, and no one wants a showdown on the ground with a desperate Syrian military. Second, observers have become cautious in asserting that widespread unrest constitutes a popular revolution or that the revolutionaries necessarily want to create a liberal democracy. The Sunnis in Syria might well want a democracy, but they might well be interested in creating a Sunni “Islamic” state. Knowing that it is important to be careful what you wish for, everyone seems to be issuing stern warnings to Damascus without doing very much.

Syria is an interesting case because it is, perhaps, the only current issue that Iran and Israel agree on. Iran is deeply invested in the al Assad regime and wary of increased Sunni power in Syria. Israel is just as deeply concerned that the al Assad regime — a known and manageable devil from the Israeli point of view — could collapse and be replaced by a Sunni Islamist regime with close ties to Hamas and what is left of al Qaeda in the Levant. These are fears, not certainties, but the fears make for interesting bedfellows.

Geopolitical Significance

Since late 2010, we have seen three kinds of uprisings in the Arab world. The first are those that merely brushed by the regime. The second are those that created a change in leaders but not in the way the country was run. The third are those that turned into civil wars, such as Libya and Yemen. There is also the interesting case of Bahrain, where the regime was saved by the intervention of Saudi Arabia, but while the rising there conformed to the basic model of the Arab Spring — failed hopes — it lies in a different class, caught between Saudi and Iranian power.

The three examples do not mean that there is not discontent in the Arab world or a desire for change. They do not mean that change will not happen, or that discontent will not assume sufficient force to overthrow regimes. They also do not mean that whatever emerges will be liberal democratic states pleasing to Americans and Europeans.

This becomes the geopolitically significant part of the story. Among Europeans and within the U.S. State Department and the Obama administration is an ideology of human rights — the idea that one of the major commitments of Western countries should be supporting the creation of regimes resembling their own. This assumes all the things that we have discussed: that there is powerful discontent in oppressive states, that the discontent is powerful enough to overthrow regimes, and that what follows would be the sort of regime that the West would be able to work with.

The issue isn’t whether human rights are important but whether supporting unrest in repressive states automatically strengthens human rights. An important example was Iran in 1979, when opposition to the oppression of the shah’s government was perceived as a movement toward liberal democracy. What followed might have been democratic but it was hardly liberal. Indeed, many of the myths of the Arab Spring had their roots both in the 1979 Iranian Revolution and later in Iran’s 2009 Green Movement, when a narrow uprising readily crushed by the regime was widely viewed as massive opposition and widespread support for liberalization.

The world is more complicated and more varied than that. As we saw in the Arab Spring, oppressive regimes are not always faced with massed risings, and unrest does not necessarily mean mass support. Nor are the alternatives necessarily more palatable than what went before or the displeasure of the West nearly as fearsome as Westerners like to think. Libya is a case study on the consequences of starting a war with insufficient force. Syria makes a strong case on the limits of soft power. Egypt and Tunisia represent a textbook lesson on the importance of not deluding yourself.

The pursuit of human rights requires ruthless clarity as to whom you are supporting and what their chances are. It is important to remember that it is not Western supporters of human rights who suffer the consequences of failed risings, civil wars or revolutionary regimes that are committed to causes other than liberal democracy.

The misreading of the situation can also create unnecessary geopolitical problems. The fall of the Egyptian regime, unlikely as it is at this point, would be just as likely to generate an Islamist regime as a liberal democracy. The survival of the al Assad regime could lead to more slaughter than we have seen and a much firmer base for Iran. No regimes have fallen since the Arab Spring, but when they do it will be important to remember 1979 and the conviction that nothing could be worse than the shah’s Iran, morally or geopolitically. Neither was quite the case.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t people in the Arab world who want liberal democracy. It simply means that they are not powerful enough to topple regimes or maintain control of new regimes even if they did succeed. The Arab Spring is, above all, a primer on wishful thinking in the face of the real world.


http://finance.townhall.com/columni...08/22/re-examining_the_arab_spring/page/full/

 

Hague is holding talks with the Russians today

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2013/mar/13/syria-crisis-uk-russia-talks-live

There is an interesting article in the Guardian on the UN's position on not wanting more arms, or training to be given to the rebels particularly in the light of what happened on previous occasions and that the important thing is that people begin to find some sort of cohesion and then, rather than fighting that the West finds some deal that will work with Russia without the need to escalate this conflict and find just more and more heartache


Clearly this situation can be concluded one of two ways. Escalating violence which might likely see escalating help to the Assad regime from Russia or some serious thinking of what can create the best conditions for the people of Syria. A way will need to be found which allows Assad to step down. At the moment he apparently believes, and I understand correctly believes that he can still stay in place....but everyone says he must go. A new way then must be found which offers protection to the Alawites and all other minorities in Syria, which brings everyone together working for the country - not increasing killing and extremists fighting it out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/syria-rebels-russia-political-transition

 

Oh indeed Syria has an election process, it also has a constitution, and a parliament. Are any of these evidence of Assad being an elected President by anyone but himself? Of course not.

I cant deny that Assad won that process? Against whom did he win that process? This process lacks a fundamental quality - legitimacy, thats why Syrians object to it, ergo he wasnt elected.

As for collars tightening, youre being strangled by your refusal to explain to us why either the process or the election is credible - how do you get away with this dodging?

Perhaps you feel Im dodging something? That Im denying some irrefutable fundamental truth about his credibility? please explain.....ill even bring out my sailors hornpipe and do a curtesy just for you.......

 

That's purely your opinion. You can't even truthfully claim that ' Syrians ' objected to it. You attempt to imply that all Syrians objected whereas only some Syrians objected - as would be natural in any election. It is Syrians who are fighting against the US of AIPAC/Zionist-encouraged militias who currently ravage Syria. It was the majority of Syrians who endorsed Assad's presidency by way of a referendum. So, take your opinion and cuddle it- but don't have the bare-faced cheek to come here and say that Assad was not elected. Assad was elected according to Syria's Constitution. Western bigots are too fond of attempting to make comparisons between the processes of non-Western States and their own- which are sadly deficient in legitimacy themselves......in my opinion.

So don't keep trolling the thread with your erroneous whimpering. Assad was elected. You don't like it, but there it is. Tough titty.