RT interviews Moscow’s envoy to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin.
A US backed U.N. Security Council resolution that would impose sanctions on Syria was vetoed by Russia and China Thursday. U.S. ambassador Susan Rice called the veto “dangerous and deplorable” and said the Security Council had “failed utterly.” The resolution called for Assad to halt violence against the opposition, without any mention of outside support for the opposition.
The UN also decided to extend its observers mission in Syria for another 30 days, dropping the condition that Assad’s troops should leave cities and return to barracks. The US is not happy.
The US wants sanctions now and did not support a rollover of the UN mission.
When US Permanent Representative Susan Rice emerged, she said as President Barack Obama’s spokesman Jay Carney had on Air Force One that the US does not support any technical rollover of the mission.
In “Stalemate at the UN over Syria” Andrea Mitchell interviewed Susan Rice. I think she’s upping the ante referencing stockpiles of chemical weapons.
For background on Russia’s veto: Syria: “It Is All About Iran”:
The Ambassador to the UN for the Russian Federation Vitaly Churkin made the point that the issue of Syria is about much more than Syria. It is a global geopolitical conflict.
There is no transcript yet of the press stakeout where Churkin elaborated on that but the gist was caught by the valuable Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press:
Then Churkin went bigger picture, paraphrasing Bill Clinton by saying “It’s all about Iran, stupid” (and striking the last word).
He said that after the US invasion of Iraq worked out differently than the US expected — with an expanded Shi’a and Iranian role, that is — now they had to try to contain Iran, by way of Syria.
…..
The ongoing attack on Syria, if successful and after a long bloody sectarian civil war, will lead to the installation of another fundamentalist Sunni government in a geographically critical state. This is lunacy. Even imperial stalwarts like the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Pat Lang ask:
Are we really happy that Sunni jihadis are disassembling a government that does not represent Sunni fanatics in the likelihood that it will be replaced by one that will?
And now the Times reports that the U.S. is engaged in discussions with Syria’s neighbors, including Israel, to forcibly end the Assad regime. Notice the URL: us-to-focus-on-forcibly-toppling-syrian-government:
The Obama administration has for now abandoned efforts for a diplomatic settlement to the conflict in Syria, and instead it is increasing aid to the rebels and redoubling efforts to rally a coalition of like-minded countries to forcibly bring down the government of President Bashar al-Assad, American officials say.
Administration officials have been in talks with officials in Turkey and Israel over how to manage a Syrian government collapse. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is headed to Israel in the next several days to meet with Israeli defense counterparts, following up on a visit last week by President Obama’s national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon, in part to discuss the Syrian crisis.
Unfortunately there is nothing that Russia, USA, UN or God all mighty can do
to stop the violence in Syria.
This is one of those cases where you can only try and minimize the damage
but in no way can you stop it. Syria is in the middle of a civil war
with everything that comes with it …
The U.S. can stop supplying so-called nonlethal aid to the rebels in Syria and stop its allies Saudi Arabia and Syria from furnishing arms to those rebels. Perhaps in return for a deal in which the Syrian government limits its responses to the rebels.
obviously, they could stop adding ammunition (fuel to the fire) and push dialogue instead of supporting the opposition NOT talking. no brainer of course. but the US wants regime change, caring about the violence is not on the top of their agenda. of course they’d like peaceful changeover of the gov. wouldn’t the ME be a loverly place if the people just rolled over and did what western interventionalists wanted.
Annie you speak like you live on Mars or something
you are a western interventionalist make no mistake.
Annie Robbins, the vast majority of Syrians hate Assad so viscerally that the US can’t stop them. The US is trying to pressure the FSA to negotiate. The FSA won’t. They don’t need American help.
Oops, I meant “its allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar”.
lysias, do you really think the Gulf dictatorships are America’s “allies”?
:-) :-) :-) :LOL:
@ anan,
They are our bad guys. Saudi Arabia & Qatar spreading democracy in Syria? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL …
Daniel Rich, Saudi Arabia is not your friend or America’s friend if you are American. They pretend to be with their fake smiles, but they are not. You are also right to be suspicious about their motives in Syria.
daniel, exactly.
actually there is something the US could do, Oleg: the US could stop supplying weapons and mercenaries to attempt to overthrow the Assad regime.
plain. and. simple.
US & Israel firsters have done everything in their power to foment agony in Syria, and to cut off avenues of dialogue.
The civil war in Syria is Made in the USA, just as much as the 1953 overthrow of Mossadeqh in Iran. US State Department is staffed by slow learners.
Hillary Clinton’s State Department planned and set in motion a scheme to topple the Assad regime over a year ago. From the first instance she had in mind the removal of Basher Assad — from Haaretz, 2010: link to haaretz.com
This is a US and Israel — more specifically, AIPAC-driven agenda.
The last charge, that AIPAC is driving the agenda, is based on the lopsided programming on C Span.
CAMERA sends out warnings to C Span producers/moderators — “COMCAST is your funder; we will tell Comcast on you” — and Comcast is owned by Israel firsters. (see CAMERA C Span, July 4, 2012).
Programming on Syria that C Span has carried in the past months:
-Ephraim Sneh (on a Wilson Center panel, moderated by Aaron David Miller, with Trita Parsi to hold the fort against Miller, Sneh, and Gaith Omani) In this Feb 22 2012 program, Sneh stated nonchalantly that “Syria will be in turmoil and it will spill over into Lebanon.”
-David Pollock, WINEP, June 30 2012 link to c-spanvideo.org When a caller suggested that the best course of action might be to assassinate Assad, Pollock replied, “it’s being tried; it’s very difficult. An adviser to Assad had been poisoned but was hospitalized & survived.”
- C Span aired a Center for Strategic & International Studies moderated by Anthony Cordesman and including Donatella Rovera of Amnesty International and Aram Nerguizian, Visiting Fellow at Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). July 13 2012. Nerguizian was quite pessimistic about Syria’s future and stressed the fault-lines between Sunni, Alawite, and Shiite Muslims. (In a BBC news brief on July 22, 2012, BBC interviewed its own ethnic Syrian reporters who report on Syria. The first woman opened her commentary stating that “for all the 30 years I lived in Syria, we lived in peace and prosperity. I do not recognize what is happening in my country.”)
-Joshua Landis, Syria expert, at Wilson Center, whose director is Jane Harman. Jul 16 2012 Landis repeated that “a cruise missile in the palace” could solve the situation; “Assad is a loser and needs to go;” “unfortunately, Christians will not fare well with Assad gone.”
-Eliot Engel, D-NY, Washington Journal, July 19 2012. Lost count of the numbers of times Engel said, “Assad brutal dictator; Iran evil; slaughtering his people.”
-Michele Flournoy, Washington Journal, July 20, 2012. Flournoy’s demagoguery was flowery but otherwise not a dime’s worth of difference between the substance of her message and that of Engel– “doesn’t matter how many Syrians have to die, GET IRAN.” Flournoy said, “Assad needs to go, then democracy will come to Syria and the differing denominations will live together in peace.” See Landis, above.
-Andrew Tabler, WINEP, Washington Journal July 22 2012 link to c-spanvideo.org Watch Tabler’s body language as several callers present substantive rebuttals of Tabler’s claims. Tabler closed the session with “taking down Assad will deny Iran . . .”
——
The Syrian ambassador, Imad Moustapha, has not been a guest on C Span since 2009. (After 100 people were killed in Houla, US pushed through the expulsion of Syria’s ambassadors from all western countries. Houla was likely a false flag op.)
Syria’s deputy ambassador to the UN, Fayssal Mekdad, has not appeared on C Span since 2005.
Buthaina Shaaban, the (female) Head of Syria’s Foreign Ministry, was last on C Span in 2004.
The last time Basher Assad appeared on C Span was August 2011 when C Span aired Al Jazeera’s interview of Assad, in which he said he would not step down inasmuch as he answers to the Syrian people, not to the West.
impressive array of sourcing allen.
Houla was likely a false flag op
yes, people have such short memories. i read something interesting this morning re the UN report on houla: link to innercitypress.com
wonder why they are being blocked? me neither.
The US following Israeli and Israel-Firster paranoia into this multi-country warring paranoia is the geopolitical equivalent of the LIBOR scandal.
ALLENBEE- “This is a US and Israel — more specifically, AIPAC-driven agenda.”
You give AIPAC too much credit. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are also heavily involved for their own reasons and with somewhat different priorities.
link to zcommunications.org
Half the time people say the Israel/AIPAC want Assad to fall because
you know he is the Enemy of Zionism and Western Imperialism
the other half say that Israel prefers hiim to a real democratic government
in Syria because he as a weak dictator and Israel does not want democratic change in the Arab world.
It really is so confusing …
It’s not. Annie’s a shill for the Syrian regime.
Redongdiculous
kathleen! love your creative wordsmithing. i didn’t think his comment was worthy of response myself.
Correct Keith. The entire Sunni world is behind the Syrian opposition. And very emotionally so. The cause of removing the Russian/Hezbollah/Khamenei/Israeli/American backed Assad (many around the world really believe this to be the case strange as this sounds) has replaced Palestine as the top and most emotional issue in the muslim world
The vast majority of Syrians strongly back the opposition. Including a large majority (but not vast majority) of Christians. A smaller majority of Christians in Lebanon also backs the Syrian opposition. Even the ones who nominally don’t such as Aoun . . . privately hate Assad. They just fear the Saudis more. They correctly understand that the greatest security threat to all 7.1 billion of us comes from Takfiri extremists backed by part of the Gulf and Pakistani establishments. [And some fear by part of the Egyptian establishment under Morsi too.]
ANAN- “The cause of removing the Russian/Hesbollah/Khamenei/Israeli/American backed Assad….”
US/Israel backing Assad? What have you been smoking? Or have you gone into stand-up comedy?
Keith, you would be shocked at how many people around the world believe that there is a Hezbollah, Russian, Khamenei, Israeli, American (often with Europeans thrown in), Iraqi axis, and that this axis is now trying to help Assad staying in power.
This blog seems to exist on cloud 9 with respect to the Syrian question. Generally the international criticism is that the US is too close to Assad and not supporting the FSA enough. A criticism I agree with.
ANAN- Since your response provided me with considerable merriment, I can only assume that the correct answer is “stand-up comedy,” with perhaps a few smokes thrown in for good measure. Since comedy is not my forte, it is best if I defer to Mooser on this. Good luck on your “cloud 9” explorations.
“…This is one of those cases where you can only try and minimize the damage
but in no way can you stop it…”
Yeah…however it in no way follows that therefore you shouldn’t even try to minimize the damage.
My impression is that Assad has definitively had it. We have now entered the window where he engages in a futile attempt to cling to power through ever more indiscriminate slaughter.
Obviously, if we shorten this window, we reduce the carnage. What will follow will still follow, but it won’t be worse on that account.
So I think the time has come to do roughly what we did in Libya. Force the Syrian air force to stay on the ground. Break up any large concentrations of Syrian troops.
We do this, we cut down on the butchery. We don’t solve the problem — but we do hasten it on its way to whatever the final resolution is going to be.
COLIN WRIGHT- “So I think the time has come to do roughly what we did in Libya.”
Humanitarian intervention? Ah, the “white mans burden” weighs heavily upon you. How fortunate for you that you will not have to worry about suffering the consequences of imperial “humanitarianism.” The empire is already massively intervening in Syria through their well-armed proxies, that is why there is so much bloodshed. As for Libya, that was an imperial intervention which caused the destruction of that defenseless country, along with a massive loss of life, decimation of the infrastructure, massive dislocation, and ongoing civil strife. It did, however, benefit US/NATO, including AFRICOM, and open up Africa to re-colonization as we head into a new era of resource wars.
link to counterpunch.org
“Humanitarian intervention? Ah, the “white mans burden” weighs heavily upon you. How fortunate for you that you will not have to worry about suffering the consequences of imperial “humanitarianism.” The empire is already massively intervening in Syria through their well-armed proxies…”
It happens to be my belief — rightly or wrongly — that judicious moves right now to cripple Assad’s military would (a) help to complete the delegitimization of the regime, thus accelerating its fall, and (b) make it more difficult for it to kill people, thus lowering the total body count to be accumulated in this phase in that way as well.
So yes, I do support military action to weaken Assad’s military potential. And I do indeed believe that would save lives and reduce the net sum of human misery.
You can apply whatever label you like to that belief. You can even assert that others will pretend to share it while pursuing other goals entirely. However, none of that affects what I just said.
Unfortunately you don’t the butchery will just switch sides.
Now the Alawite minority which holds all the power in Surya butchers
the Sunni majority.
Topple the Assad regime and guess what the Sunni will butcher the Alawites.
Whoever you back in this game you risk supporting a massacre.
“Unfortunately you don’t the butchery will just switch sides…
No…that’s just a false analysis motivated by a desire to rationalize helping Assad to cling to power.
Assad is gone. The only question is how long he’ll be able to hang on. The longer he hangs on, the more people he kills.
Then, once he’s gone, some unknowable but essentially independent process begins.
That too is likely to be bloody. However, it will not become less bloody for letting Assad continue to prolong his exit.
You can have — say — fifty thousand people killed before Assad goes and a hundred thousand after. Or you can have a hundred thousand people killed before Assad goes and a hundred thousand after. Allowing the first number to grow will not cause the second number to shrink. It’s not a teeter totter.
ColinWright, I don’t have a problem with this. But it should be lead by Turkey, Arab League and Europe. The US should not do this except as part of a NATO mission commanded by a Turkish 3 or 4 star general.
We aren’t there yet. (Aside from Turkey, there isn’t enough support for this from the European allies.)
In the short run, NATO could assume the responsibility for training, advising and providing enablers to the FSA under Turkish leadership.
Say Oleg, I think you need a new Russian-to-English dictionary. A civil war is between citizens of the same country; it doesn’t involve mercenaries, foreign-trained troops, foreign calls for regime change, and other forms of foreign intervention. The right phrase here would be [Israeli] “proxy war.”
You really should read up on history
Roya it’s interesting stuff and great education.
Here is a free lesson for just this once.
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
Roya, how many recent civil wars were not deeply influenced by international powers? You live in a dream world. Most civil wars are de facto regional and international wars.
Ha! That’s cute, Oleg..
Those bastions of democracy Saudi Arabia and the other GCC countries calling for democracy in Syria is almost as funny as the US calling for it, having propped up these perverted medieval dictators for 30 odd years, but the time when all these satraps are hanging from lamp posts is fast approaching.
@ Harry
Saudi cant get any more joined at the hip to the US then appointing Bandar as Intelligence chief. There has to be a reason for Abdullah to appoint Bandar as the new Saudi Intelligence Chief. Bandar has been the Saudi ‘man about town’ and political ‘playboy and host to DC politicos’ in the US for more years than he has spent in Saudi.
link to warincontext.org
CIA’s favorite Saudi prince is laying the groundwork for a post-Assad Syria
by News Sources on July 23, 2012
Zvi Bar’el writes: Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar bin Sultan, 62, fell in love with the United States when he was still a pilot in his country’s air force and took aerobatics training on an American air base. The romance was renewed several years later when he was named his country’s ambassador to Washington, a tenure that lasted 22 years, during which he was a regular guest of both George Bushes and was the only ambassador who was guarded by the U.S. Secret Service.
Last week King Abdullah named him director-general of the Saudi Intelligence Agency, replacing Muqrin bin Abdulaziz, on top of his post as secretary general of the National Security Council, which he’s held since 2005.
HarryLaw . . . yes the GCC dictators are hypocrites. But the free world should support freedom in Syria. And they have.
The nonmuslim free democracies from Latin America to Africa to Asia (including India and Brazil) now support Syrian freedom.
It is not uncommon to hear or read words written by Jewish Israelis that what comes after the Assad regime will be worse. It is clear that it would be a blow against Iran and Hezbollah if Assad were to fall.
This post contains the realization that the desire for freedom might not yield freedom. Every situation differs, but it is good to hear the voice of realism here.
I react with derision to Vitaly Churkin’s invitation to dialogue with the Assad regime.
I think that the Assad regime suffered a major blow this week both physically and symbolically with the bomb killing higher ups in the regime. The lack of mention of that fact and any real analysis at the changing situation seems to point out that this post is flimsy to the max as a true Syria update and is merely broadcasting Russia’s point of view.
Why is Mondoweiss so weak in covering the Syrian situation? Why does it allow
flimsy posts like this to do the talking?
“Why does it allow flimsy posts like this to do the talking?’…
yonah
Nothing flimsy about it. If you don’t like the post here go elsewhere. Your comment adds nothing and Russia’s opinion and the others quoted are like oh, maybe a trillion- trillion times more important than a nobody on a site board.
The lack of mention of that fact and any real analysis at the changing situation seems to point out that this post is flimsy to the max as a true Syria update
i admit it certainly could have been a lot more. in general we have not been covering events in syria here and the nature of foreign backed uprisings and regime change is those foreigners are not very forthcoming with the amount of intervention they provide although the latest info from the WH at least admits we’ve been interceding for the last few weeks, yet note the nyt said several weeks several weeks ago in their june 21st post link to nytimes.com , maybe they should try saying ‘months’.
i follow events in syria regularly @ link to moonofalabama.org
but as for a MW opinion or analysis, the site, as far as i know, doesn’t have one. iow any analysis of mine is just that, mine.
wrt the assassinations last week i recommend :
prior to the assassinations there was even another massacre on the eve of the big UN meeting. this became the 5th such massacre on the eve of a UN meeting which begs the question why would the syrian government ‘attack its own people’ on the eve of a determining UN meeting? then, the western press goes into full gear accusing the regime only to have the regimes allegations of the military operation (as opposed to a ‘massacre’ of civilians) confirmed .
empty wheel had a really good post last week CIA “Command and Control” in Syria. she links to
(my bold). my analysis is, as the latest NYT heading indicates (open link and look at top of browser) “US to Focus on Forcibly Toppling Syrian Government”, we’re focused on forcibly toppling the syrian government and we’ve been focused on it for a long long time. the title of the article tho is “Stymied at U.N., U.S. Refines Plan to Remove Assad” and that is very telling if they mean a ‘refinement’ of last weeks attack on the regime. so i agree with you ‘Assad regime suffered a major blow this week both physically and symbolically with the bomb killing higher ups in the regime’.
do i think it will work? not so sure. do i think we will assassinate, or support the assassination of assad? if he doesn’t stand down, yes. but i am on the fence regarding if we can pull it off mostly because the majority of syrians are not behind the foreign backed rebels.
i think, given the election cycle, these phases are planned out months in advance and we’re behind schedule, hence the more drastic measures taking place now. the david ignatius nyt article marcy links to “Looking for a Syrian endgame” says Scores of Israeli intelligence officers are also operating along Syria’s border, though they are keeping a low profile. although that low profile won’t last long if israel attacks syria: link to zeenews.india.com
so gloves are coming off. we’re poised in the background but the chances the opposition has anywhere near the expertise that compares w/the cia, israel and SA is slim to none. it just looks much better all the way around if this appears homegrown. just like iraq, i don’t think it is. it’s just another western backed regime change. russia and china know this. they’ve vetoed our MO and now we’re coming out of the closet.
so that’s my analysis.
Annie Robbins- Thanks for fleshing out your report.
I suppose MW is not meant to be a primary source for news regarding Syria and I enjoyed watching Churkin fielding the questions.
I think Assad will fall. Before this week I gave him three years. Now I’m not so sure he will last that long. I don’t know much about the Assad regime, but whatever I have heard has been very bad, they are known for being extremely repressive.
To state the obvious: Whereas the Sinai Peninsula separates Israel from Tahrir Square, Damascus is really next door.
I enjoyed watching Churkin fielding the questions
i thought it was a balanced interview given the nature of the intense questioning. not pandering to churkin at all. i linked to the rice interview and could have featured that instead but she was completely predictable and unchallenged, but i made it available. i wasn’t sure what your pt was w/the merely broadcasting Russia’s point of view because the interviewer (unlike mitchell) didn’t play lame duck.
I react with derision to Vitaly Churkin’s invitation to dialogue with the Assad regime.
yeah, because dialogue is so..threatening. basically it doesn’t guarantee regime change, so if the priority is regime change, dialogue is more threatening than violence. unfortunately.
annie robbins- Name for me once in the last 40 years when the assad regime was interested in reform. that’s why i react with derision. i don’t think they are capable of reform nor interested in reform. if you can demonstrate to me from history where i am wrong i would be willing to listen. but to pretend that assad is interested in dialogue and interested in reform seems to me to be based on a wish and not reality.
i do not think they are interested in reform yonah. i think they are interested in staying in power, that is the nature of dictatorships. however, i think there’s a possibility they may view reform as preferable to being assassinated or overthrown. therefore i think, being between a rock and a hard place they could be forcibly reformed, or persuaded to reform.
i’m thinking of an endgame with the least possible chaos or violence. ithink there could be internationally observed elections there. in fact as i recall they are on track for elections in about a year or something and there’s already been a reshuffling of parliament (i’m sure others know more about this than me).
the US has expressed keeping much of the government structure in place (as opposed to its tactics in iraq) they just seem bent on doing it sans assad.
the problem, as i see it, is i’m not quite convinced assad doesn’t have the support and power to stay in power. if that is the case the chance of a escalation of violence and chaos is almost guarenteed. so that’s why i support western backed dialogue, something the opposition has refused to do…refused with western backing.
annie, check out Russ Baker (former NYT). He’s another not buying the MSM Syria line. (repeating myself. mentioned this on another thread.)
“Syria, The Movie: Monsters And Defectors”
link to whowhatwhy.com
“Everything They’re Telling Us About Syria….Is False?”
link to whowhatwhy.com
mrw, thanks for turning me on to that site and russ baker. the articles kick.
impressive cast of characters
link to whowhatwhy.com
jonah, I think you may read things not quite correctly about this blog. Most commentators here are fine with Hezbollah as a defender of Lebanon’s integrity, and a solid representative of the aspirations of lebanese people to live in peace and prosperity. It is the brutal regime of Israel, that has problems with anyone who won’t cow tow to their imperial ambitions, that won’t kneel to the designs against other humans, that’s now being openly drafted to murder Syrian people and drag the country into bloody strife that we are against.
Yes, yes, we hear that israel has worries about “what comes after Assad”. That’s part of the misleading campaign being waged to prevent people from seeing israel’s finger prints all over the terror being inflicted upon Syria as we speak. Yes, I know I said above “being dragged’ – that’s just for appearance’s sake. the reality of course is that it’s Israel’s stooge US that’s being dragged every-which-way, looking as groggy as the morning after
There is indeed a need to cover Syria more, especially the lock step propaganda against it that emanates from Israel Firsters like you. I think it’s definitely time to tell the world about the horrors perpetrated by Israel’s regime and it’s evil collaborators in the US who apparently own CSPAN and you. it is time to tell about the terror cells supported by US operated by Israel all over the Arab world. It is time to tell what Israel is really planning for the Arab world, isn’t it? or may be it is just time to tell what it has planned and is already executing for the US?
For you to come here and peddle your creepy garbage about Iran, Lebanon – and Syria – countries that did nothing to the the US – is a travesty. Actually, it is kind of disgusting how easily and readily people such as you align with the forces of violence and evil in the world. Zionism really is poisonous creed. Someone here said that Arendt was wrong – evil is not all that banal. It is sometimes quite interesting to behold.
I am making it personal because frankly neither you, nor any of your cohorts on the other propaganda channels, those purveyors of blood and gore like CNN CSPAN NBC and the rest, have a foot to stand on when compared to Hezbollah. Or a heart to speak through when it comes to denounciations of terror. Yes, you have the big money behind you and get your directives from Blood and Gore central, even if you don’t recognize the commands as directives, but here, on this blog we know what you are and can see through to the essence of your being even through the net fogs.
J’accuse you jonah Fredman as a peddler of blood libels. just like those middle age priests and peasants – you lend a hand to those who’d assemble a mob hungry for the destruction of them who do not kneel to the false gods and the very real goblins they unleash. So keep coming here and spewing hatred against human beings and I’ll keep calling you out for what you are. A defender and promoter of terror.
For anyone who wants to see what real terror is about they should visit West bank and the ghetto of Gaza where Israel herded it’s undesirables. That’s where we are all looking, in case you didn’t notice.
@ Danaa
I am in love with you! You rock!
Danaa- i think i know why you’re so upset. you’re upset that the bloodbath in syria is causing the world to shift its attention away from the injustice being perpetrated by Israel.
Danaa, my name is Yonah. you can call me Jonah and i answer to it. but my name is spelled with a Y.
Do you have any polling that backs you up regarding how the average Lebanese feels about Hezbollah’s role today in Lebanon? Do you consider the 2009 elections in Iran to have been stolen or not?
On being called an Israel firster- i am not capable of separating my own desire to see the best happen for Israel from what is best for the United States, but I attempt to do so anyway. I get most of my news from the MSM and thus really don’t know what life is like in Lebanon and Iran. The MSM seems to be pretty widely agreed that the 2009 election was stolen in Iran. It seems rather clear that the Assad regime is one of the most repressive regimes in the world.
I think it would be a great boon for Israel for the Assad regime to fall as long as the result is not utter chaos or chemical weapons getting into Hezbollah’s hands. To break up the Syria, Iran, Hezbollah nexus would be a great boon for Israel. Whether it would be a great boon for the US, I don’t know. I’m not sure what the US long term interest is in the Middle East other than the steady flow of oil and nuclear nonproliferation. It is natural for the US to favor change towards democracy, but it is not natural for the US to favor real change. Would the fall of the house of Saud be in the US’s favor? In the short term, definitely not. As shown by Obama’s bow to the Saudi representative, the US certainly wants oil prices to be low at least until the election in November.
Two points, Yonah: (1) Let me know if I’m reading between the lines too much, but you seem to know that MSM does not give a true representation of Iran and Lebanon, but you don’t care, you are blissfully happy about your ignorance. Because the MSM tells you that Iranians and Lebanese are not human, that they don’t deserve to breathe the same air as you. If your “enemies” are not human, it is easy for you as a self-described “old fart” to imagine their deaths, to support the IDF in its terroristic endeavors against them, to see their countries wiped off the map. It is easy to envision the people of the Levant burning from white phosphorus, it is easy to envision the people of Iran, with whom your people share(d) a millennia-long relationship of mutual respect, being incinerated by your bombs. These were some Israeli responses to Asghar Farhadi’s Oscar-winning film A Separation:
Are you one of these people, Yonah Fredman? Because if you are, let me blow your mind by informing you that a whopping 0.00% of Iranians live in caves.
And (2), at the back of your mind, there is a lingering doubt about alleged election fraud in 2009. How do I know this? Because you clarify—you say, the MSM widely agreed that the election was “stolen.” You know that other reports exist, but it doesn’t matter. Because the MSM gives you a story that is easy to believe, that you want to believe. Because you want to think that the Iranian people are helpless, that by bombing the fuck out of them the United States of Israel will be “liberating” them. Well let me be the bearer of bad news, Mr. Fredman and let you in on a secret. The election was not stolen; the Iranian people put Ahmadinejad in power. One of the nice things about the Internet, which you seem to be capable of surfing, is that it gives you access to non-mainstream information such as this, a WorldPublicOpinion study on the 2009 elections. Some highlights from the report:
Looks like the Iranian people don’t want to be liberated by your forces after all.
Yonah you carry a number of misconceptions that infect consumers of MSN.
The 2009 elections in Iran were not “stolen”. Check out some of the Leverett’s analysis at RaceforIran.
Hezbollah does not have an electoral majority and it never has. However, there many Lebanese who would not vote for them but do admire and support their ability to protect their country from Israeli aggression.
Of course it would be a great boon to Israel for Hezbollah to fall. Lebanon would then be defenseless against Israeli aggression. It sort of sounds that you like that idea.
At this point it is irrelevant how oppressive the Assad regime might be but you exaggerate to call it one of the worst in the world. The war of aggression now being carried out against Syria has nothing to do with improving the lot of the Syrian people and everything to do with US, Israeli, Saudi and Turkish desires to weaken Iran and Hezbollah. The Syrian people are the true victims here and their enemy is the above group along with the Assad regime. But destroying Assad will only hurt not help the people.
ToivoS- The Leveretts are known to be supporters of Iran. I realize I have to study the election returns from the previous 2 or 3 elections in order to make an educated analysis of the election returns. I am willing to go with the MSM verdict until then, but I respect you if you have studied the returns on your own and you’re not dependent on the Leveretts.
I do not think a country should have more than one army. Lebanon has two armies. You feel that the Lebanese army is not sufficient to protect it and therefore it needs two armies. I hear you. But then Lebanon is not a sovereign country in terms of having two armies and not one. Nasrallah is charismatic, granted. But I tend to believe the stories about terrorism attributed to him and his organization. Again I have not done enough research and my impression is formed by the MSM. I accept that peace between Lebanon and Israel ought to wait until there is peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But odds are that will take somewhere between 20 and 60 years. Your attitude is that Lebanon needs Nasrallah to keep Israel on its best behavior. I consider him a dangerous man.
Who will replace Assad? Will they be worse than Assad for the Syrian people? I don’t really know. The idea that Assad is amenable to democracy is laughable. The idea that Assad is interested in dialogue stretches my credulity.
Once again Roya taking polls done in authoritarian societies as somehow scientifically “valid” or “reliable”. In a country where people go missing, are tortured, executed, etc. simply for their political and religious beliefs. Polls done in such societies are inherently neither scientifically valid nor reliable. Nice try though. After their own fraudulent to begin-with election (you must be “Islamic” enough to even run) they had to commit fraud on top of that. Post-election documents from the Revolutionary Guards revealed this as well. Funny though you try to offer every excuse in the book for this fascist and illegitimate regime which has destroyed our once great homeland.
Yonah responds: but I respect you if you have studied the returns on your own and you’re not dependent on the Leveretts.
I have not studied any returns. My opinion is based on a little history. In 2009 I was cheering from the sidelines in support of the people of Tehran that were trying to overthrow the Islamic government. I saw some of the pre-election polling and thought it was plausible that the Islamists had won, but nevertheless it seemed that the world would be better off if the mad mullahs were overthrown. There was nothing democratic about those elections in the first place when a council of mullahs had to approve all candidates. Since then I have come to accept that however bad the current Islamic Republic they do have the support of a majority of Iranians. I hugely dislike the current regime in China but also recognize that they have legitimacy. It is not for me nor the US government to say who is legitimate and who is not.
Something else here — most of the western voices in the MSM that have been working to delegitimize Iran are the same MSM voices that led the propaganda campaign that led to war in Iraq. These voices have zero credibility in my opinion. At the same time a number of analysts (not just the Leveretts) who should have gained credibility for being right about Iraq, have pointed out that as flawed as those Iranian elections might have been, the Islamist actually won the popular vote. I happen to believe those voices who have proven their credibility.
Yoneh, I can see that you find it convenient to believe the MSM (even if they are proven liars with respect to the Iraq war) because they reinforce your belief in Israel. That must give you some comfort. But you are letting what you want to be true into believing proven liars.
Roya- First of all: take it down a notch, dude. I know the crowd here loves your heated rhetoric, but if you are addressing me (and you mention my name 3 times, so I must assume you are addressing me) a civil tone is more appropriate. If you are talking to the crowd, then mention my name once and that would be enough, dude. (if you are a dudette, sorry for the gender confusion.)
I apologize for my lack of proof regarding the Iranian elections. But polls taken beforehand are zero proof. My memory of my superficial reading of the election results included 1. early release of election results earlier than in previous elections raises doubts regarding: how did they count the ballots so fast, leading to conclusion- when you make up your own results, you don’t need to wait. 2. Why didn’t the elections reflect the realities of the candidates involved? If an opposition candidate from a certain locale received less votes than the opposition candidate from last time who did not come from that locale, why is that? The lack of such a reflection seemed to indicate phony results. 3. The numbers given- When people make up numbers they think they are being random, but in fact they aren’t. They choose numbers with a certain predictability, particularly in the last digit of the number. The Iranian results were not random in their last digits and the odds of them being actual election results rather than numbers that someone decided to write down was less than one in ten. 4. The opposition was willing to go to the streets and die and suffer imprisonment because they felt the election had been stolen.
I realize that it is feasible that the election was not stolen and these people went into the streets and gave their lives despite the fact that they did not represent the majority opinion of their countrymen. But I give them the benefit of the doubt certainly over the Leveretts and certainly over pre election polls taken in a regime where they can disappear you when it suits their whim.
I do not think Iranians are living in caves and deserved to be bombed. I think they are human beings who deserve freedom and respect. You think they have freedom enough and I think they lack certain freedoms. (I know for a fact that in order to run you have to pass muster with the imams. is that your concept of a free election? i think that even so the results were bogus. But i am not in favor of any violent action against Iran because the results were bogus.)
if you bring me quotes from Juan Cole or someone of his reputation how he is convinced that the elections were fair, that would be different than a quote from the Leveretts. I believe that Cole is agnostic regarding the election results. If I am wrong correct me.
I realize that you and others feel that a civil tone is a sign of weakness in your hatred for the Zionist enemy. Good for you, dude. You’ve done well in avoiding a civil tone.
annie robbins- On the subject of polling, what do you think it’s like when you answer the telephone in Syria or North Korea and a stranger is asking you your opinions. Maybe in Syria it is like a telemarketer in the states, but I don’t think so. People get nervous in totalitarian countries when the phone rings and it’s a stranger. A stranger asking you political questions? You think because the phone call comes from Doha or anywhere on the planet, you think the average North Korean says, cool, I can speak my mind. maybe syria is more similar to california than it is to north korea, but maybe you are not being honest about thinking in depth what it means for your phone to ring in syria and a stranger is asking you questions.
tone and civility aside, your argument boils down to the benefit of the doubt, a matter of faith. iow, no argument.
@yonah
“give them the benefit of the doubt certainly over the Leveretts . . . that would be different than a quote from the Leveretts.” ? ? ?
You are ignorant of the role the Leveretts paid in the US government, and of their highly regarded geopolitical expertise. You may as well have said give them the benefit of the doubt over a donkey for all your understanding of what you are talking about.
Since you don’t seem capable of keeping that foot out of your mouth, it’s obvious your hands are busy, so here you are:
Their stature is far superior to Juan Cole, and his is secure.
Hillary Mann Leverett’s bio: READ IT.
link to raceforiran.com
Flynt Leverett’s bio: READ IT
link to raceforiran.com
First of all: take it down a notch, dude. I know the crowd here loves your heated rhetoric, but if you are addressing me (and you mention my name 3 times, so I must assume you are addressing me) a civil tone is more appropriate.
and
I realize that you and others feel that a civil tone is a sign of weakness in your hatred for the Zionist enemy. Good for you, dude. You’ve done well in avoiding a civil tone.
From someone who told one of the most civil posters here to go f**k himself, this is laughably hypocritical on your part. Feel free to demand of others what you yourself are unwilling or unable to give. But don’t be surprised if others point out your peevish hypocrisy in doing so. This seems to be a recurring theme for you. Demand others treat you with deference but give little in return.
Aww, tree, cut poor “yonah” some slack. He figured now that “sassan” showed up, they were unbeatable, and would sweep the field before them. He’s just a little quick in assuming all the prerogatives of a massive rhetorical victory. And don’t forget Ziocaine amnesia, which prevents him from remembering he’s said the same stupid, nasty and arrogant crap a hundred times before, and been slapped down with the facts a hundred times before. Oh excuse me yonah, there’s no truth, only two “narratives” in the “perpetual conflict”
And yes, what an attractive picture of, and advertisement for, Zionist rhetoric. I wonder (hey, unlike yonah, I’m a Wondering Jew!) if yonah has ever shown his comments to a Rabbi, and asked his opinion about continuing to rhetorically sabotage Israel. Probably not. Zionists give orders to Rabbis, they don’t take orders from them. After all, if it wasn’t for the Zionists, the Ark would be empty.
tree- if you mean my discussion with shmuel, i think shmuel can defend himself.
Yonah (Wondering Jew): “But I tend to believe the stories about terrorism attributed to him [Nasrallah] and his organization.”
Please share a couple of these with us, with links. The whole point of a conversation like this is to share information that others may not have seen. (And the links will also give us a chance to learn which sites you rely on.)
1. Dudette.
2. I was addressing your statement so I don’t know why you would be confused about who I was addressing.
3. Reasoning doesn’t leave a mark on Zionists so it’s nice to see that “heated rhetoric” does. But to cater to your Zionist needs I will “take it down a notch.”
4. I don’t care what you think of the elections. I detected ignorance and took the time to cure it, but you’re the one who has to live with yourself so ignore away. There’s no hard evidence that Ahmadinejad was not the elected winner, but I’m not going to scour the Internet to find a quote from your person-of-choice.
5. The 2009 elections in the eyes of the West is just another case of the ‘If you repeat a lie long enough, people will start to take it for fact’ adage–just like now, when hard evidence tying Iran or Hezbollah to the Burgas bombing has not surfaced but even if in a week they find definitively that it was some Bulgarian kid, years from now people will say definitively that Iran or Hezbollah was behind it because MSM hammered this into their heads within the first few days of the incident, when minds are most impressionable.
6. The demonstrations where people risked lives and imprisonment were centered in Tehran; there were smaller ones in other major cities, but that is just a few cities out of Iran’s hundreds of cities and towns and these protestors do not represent all 70+ million Iranians. Ahmadinejad is especially popular in rural areas, but Western press was centered in the very non-rural city of Tehran and in that you have selection bias in coverage of response to the election outcome.
7. Yes unfortunately candidates do have to be vetted by the Guardian Council but no one said Iran is a democracy (note that this is still not an invitation for foreign-imposed regime change).
8. Keep in mind that the MSM you get your news from has an agenda. Obama went to the pain of rescheduling a scheduled maintenance that Twitter had planned so as not to disrupt the “Twitter Revolution.” Also it is no secret that the United States of Israel hates Ahmadinejad and wants regime change in Iran.
9. As far as the rest I will not do your homework for you but here is Wikipedia’s take:
You might also find these helpful: Iranian Elections: The ‘Stolen Elections’ Hoax by James Petras link to globalresearch.ca
Many Signs of Fraud, but No Hard Evidence, in Iranian Election by Glenn Kessler and Jon Cohen (Jewish sounding last name; maybe he passes your person-of-choice test) link to washingtonpost.com Did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Steal the 2009 Iran Election? by Eric A. Brill link to campaigniran.org
I’m not talking about anyone defending him or herself, and I’m positive that Shmuel can do so without any help from anyone. I’m pointing out your hypocrisy in demanding everyone else maintain what you consider a “civil tone” in addressing you when you don’t do the same. As I said, it seems to be a recurring theme in many of your posts.
Your comprehension skills direly need some sharpening. All I said is that Ahmadinejad is the elected president and that I do not want you or any foreign bodies to interfere in the domestic affairs of my countrymen, which I should add is a desire felt by most Iranians both inside and outside of Iran. CIA-MI6 Regime Change 1.0 backfired in under 40 years and led to the revolution that established the theocracy and CIA-Mossad Regime Change 2.0 would not fare any better.
Also lecturing others on civil tone using a hostile tone is quite an odd practice. Please do continue to volunteer your true colors.
And thank you tree.
Hezbollah is blamed for participation in the assassination of Hariri and the two bombings in Buenos Aires in the early 90′s. Those are MSM beliefs and I’m sorry that I am not increasing your knowledge.
Hezbollah is blamed for participation in the assassination of Hariri and the two bombings in Buenos Aires in the early 90′s.
What are you babbling on about? Buenos Aires? That old saw? They were false flag operations:
link to voltairenet.org
Read Robert Fisk, who lives in Beirut, about the Hariri case.
link to independent.co.uk
Hezbollah is blamed for participation in the assassination of Hariri
oh yada, a decade later when they were on a hezzy witch hunt.
Annie Robbins, you are better than that. Nasrallah killing Hariri was wrong.
Some Lebanese (Aoun) fear that Hariri might be too close to salafi extremists in Saudi. This is a valid concern, but this doesn’t make killing Hariri any less wrong.
An independent UN commission found evidence of Nasrallah’s guilt.
tree- Leave the gatekeeping to mooser. Mooser is mondoweiss’s version of don rickles, only without zionism and with antlers. he’s in charge of entertainment and refereeing attitudes of the participants. Why would you want to take his job away from him?
Damascus is closer to Jerusalem than Chicago is to St. Louis and when idiots pretend that you are changing the topic when talking about Syria, that shows the low level of discourse here in Mondoweiss’s basement. Annie Robbins quoting polls of Syrians without a degree of reality re: polling people in a dictatorship, is a sign of someone without knowledge being given a soapbox upstairs and to me it degrades Mondoweiss.
At times I try to bring my own personal perspective on the issues involved in the Middle East. Regarding Syria, I demand (make fun of that, Mooser!) seriousness, which is lacking in quoting polls of Syrians.
My knowledge of Iran and Hezbollah is weak and biased. When I was young I would have aspired to outdo those who know more than me by studying the issue. I am old and lazy on this one. I listen to people who have digested the news for me like Harel and Isaacharof of Haaretz to tell me what the raw situation is and I am beginning to listen to voices like Larry Derfner and Noam Sheizaf to gauge how to react to those “facts”.
“Why is Mondoweiss so weak in covering the Syrian situation?”
See, yonah (in case you’re Wondering) there are two possible answers to your question. One might be ‘because Mondoweiss is intent on singling out and delegitimizing Israel’, and the other might be ‘because Mondoweiss, as it says in the “about” section, is mostly devoted to Palestine issues.’
Which do you think it is?
hey mooser, you may think i’m off base, but today there’s a column by eleanor kilroy opposing annie’s point of view, so obviously someone here felt that i was on target. and btw, damascus is next door to palestine.
Oh dear me, are suggesting that I wasted 20 minutes responding to the Wondering Jew. I thought Yonah was a reasonable voice. However he did sound narcissistic with his insistence that his name was Yonah, not Jonah. Reminded me of those teen somethings that insist that my name is “becki with an ‘i’”. Who the f..k cares how we are supposed to transliterate some Hebrew name.
Mooser, many Palestinians live in Syria. Palestinians are being mass murdered by Assad.
Yonah, understand where you are coming from. Am I wrong to suspect a subtle sectarian bias in this article and in many of the comments?
I think we should be on Lebanon watch as well. I sent some links to Phil the other day, on Dan Shapiro saying “israel has the right to defend itself” against Hezbollah, echoing claims of the attacker being a member of Hezbollah ( from anonymous US officials.)
Barak has said he told the IDF to prepare an invasion of Syria, but I have to wonder if he really means Lebanon, as the Turks and Co. (FSA) seem to have Assad sewn up pretty nicely.
” We are to a great extent the initiator. We attacked Imad Mugniyeh and we are conducting a battle against Iran [an allusion possibly to Israeli assassinations there]. We are not passive. The other side is responding [to us], deterring and [counter] attacking. If Israel responds to this [the Bulgaria bombing], then we must take into account that the other side will respond in kind. That’s the dynamic.
…Both Syria and Iran are in retreat. The side that is on the attack is the one seeking to stop Syria and Iran and that will, at the right moment, deal with this problem called Hezbollah.”
Uzi Arad (Fmr national security advisor in Haaretz)
link to richardsilverstein.com
“deal with this problem called Hezbollah” means one thing: another invasion of lebanon
Barak has said he told the IDF to prepare an invasion of Syria
yeah, i read about that last night. more yada yada about chemical weapons ‘against his own people’ which is the jiu jitsu d’jour of the invasion set.
Netanyahu also talked about the possibility of invading Syria to secure the chemical weapons in his interview with Mike Wallace this morning. See the transcript that Phil has posted in another thread.
thanks lysias. btw, i think we were posting at the same time. i just added my ‘analysis’ upthread. i’ll try to find that interview and add the link tothe comment section. might be helpful.
Not Mike Wallace, but Chris Wallace. (I made the same mistake Netanyahu did in the interview!)
Pat Lang at Sic Semper Tyrannis
-There is no good outcome for Israel re Syria link to turcopolier.typepad.com
the point i meant to hilight in the Sic Semper Tyrannis link was Lang’s claim that chemical weapons in Syria is a “distraction; ” bogus.
allegations of WMD was a real game changer in iraq. when in doubt go nuclear or chemical with the allegations. obviously the US doesn’t worry about israel using WP on gazans. most people do not listen and do not understand what is happening in syria (by design of course) so injecting chemical weapons prior to informing the public of an invasion of syria makes all the sense in the world from a propaganda pov.
thanks allen. lang says Chemical weapons are not a serious factor in any of these scenarios. i agree. however i do not think his list of possible outcomes, while gloomy and likely, encompass/represent a full range of scenarios.
Allen bee, Pat Lang is right on this. I left a comment at the link you provide pointing out the military futility of chemical weapons compared to say rapid fire rifles and high explosives.
” ““deal with this problem called Hezbollah” means one thing: another invasion of lebanon..”
Wasn’t Hezbollah more or less a response to Israeli invasion in the first place?
…and yet the Israelis think the way to deal with it is to invade again?
They really do have this knee-jerk tendency to think any problem can be solved simply with an application of violence.
well, ever since they (the IDF) got beat back in 2006, they have wanted to reassert their “deterrence capacity” – cast lead was a part of this, another lebanon war has been seen as inevitable since 2006
“…well, ever since they (the IDF) got beat back in 2006, they have wanted to reassert their “deterrence capacity”…”
Yeah. I think Israel can’t deal with the suspicion that really, Hezbollah beat her. They’re going to feel compelled to reassure themselves that they are still militarily supreme — and the only way to do that is to invade Lebanon again.
It’s hell being next to Israel. And it’s really hell if you’re small.
“I think we should be on Lebanon watch as well…”
Bit Israel’s always threatening to invade Lebanon. Israel thinks of Lebanon about the way I think about my backyard. I feel like going out there and having a beer, I go out there and have a beer. Israel feels like invading Lebanon, she invades Lebanon.
I smell a reprise of yellow cakes…
It never ceases to amaze me how eager we always appear to be to rush into one war after another. It is as if some cognitive switch in our psyche got turned off that prevents us from learning anything from our history since WW2.
Sure I understand the desire to control resources, but look how the Chinese are doing it without going to war with anyone.
I swear, it seems that we get stupider by the day! Why we aren’t all rising for a regime change here in the US is beyond me. Seems to me that a revolution is long overdue, and I mean the French Revolution, complete with guillotines.
Tumbril Time, eh C&D?
Yellow Cake you say?
link to youtube.com
It will take a sizable fleet of tumbrils given the number of candidates for the chopper.
The reference to yellow cakes is to draw parallels to the fabrication of false evidence for WMDs – chemical weapons in this case.
That youtube skit was pretty funny, though!
Tumbril Time
That reminds me, shouldn’t we be giving some acknowledgments to Alex Cockburn who just passed away this last week. Among his many journalistic achievement he edited the “New Antisemitism” (link to amazon.com) that brought together many essays that just happen to cover the same issues that Phil Weiss is now dedicating his career to. Alex was a long time friend of Edward Said and (at least from my narrow perspective) brought his work to the attention of American progressives. Alex wrote for a number of years at The Nation and wrote many essays describing the plight of the Palestinian people to an American audience. He left there some time back but since then, as we all know, that The Nation has become a Democratic Party voice for liberal Zionism. But it was not always that way. He, along with St Clair, founded Counterpunch which has been a highly informative and entertaining site for analysis and a progressive perspective on current politics.
This site should give Alex Cockburn some space with a proper obituary.
Correction: Alexander Cockburn did not leave The Nation as you state. Alex continued to be a valued columnist at The Nation until his death. Check out The Nation website for a warm essay by John Nicols remembering acid-tongued Alex.
Alex Cockburn was a supporter of the Palestinians, and a critic of Israeli policy, decades ago when taking this position called for even more courage than it does now. His CounterPunch website is one of the few places to make the writings of Uri Avnery available to the public.
He will be missed.
Gotta think Cockburn viewed Nichols as somewhat of a fraud, democratic party cheerleader that he is. Couldnt help but think that when I saw he wrote a remembrance essay
The Cockburn/St. Clair book is called “The Politics of Anti-Semitism.”
link to amazon.com
“The New Antisemitism” is a very different animal.
Justin Raimondo wrote a meaningful obituary at antiwar.com link to original.antiwar.com.
And speaking of the “New Anti-Semitism” an Israeli filmmaker made this enlightening documentary about it. link to youtube.com
CLOAKANDDAGGER- “Seems to me that a revolution is long overdue….”
Is that you, VR?
Nope. Who’s VR?
“It never ceases to amaze me how eager we always appear to be to rush into one war after another. It is as if some cognitive switch in our psyche got turned off that prevents us from learning anything from our history since WW2.
Sure I understand the desire to control resources, but…”
I don’t think it has anything to do with ‘controlling resources.’ If it did, we’d invade Venezuela.
It’s some kind of irrational mechanism. There’s some growing sense of insecurity and self-doubt we feel the need to assuage.
…It doesn’t help that these attempts to assuage it never seem to work out.
A war with Lebanon, Syria or Iran will not be determined by propaganda or the views of intelligence agencies a war will happen because it is US. POLICY, Syria has always been low hanging fruit, as was Lebanon until Hezbollah came along, in my opinion Iran will not be attacked in any circumstances. The Iranians do not need to close the strait of Hormuz, in the event of war all export terminals in the gulf would be destroyed, there would be no shipping to stop, the Ras Tanura terminal in Sauadi Arabia for instance, just across the Strait and dangerously exposed could be wiped out with only a couple of missiles. ” An assault on Ras Tanura would be vastly more serious as much as 80% of the near 9 million barrels of oil a day pumped out by the Saudis is believed to end up being piped from fields such as Ghawar to Ras Tanura in the Gulf to be loaded onto supertankers bound for the West [Terry McAlister Guardian 3rd June 2004:- See here link to guardian.co.uk ] This article was written with terrorism in mind, but would apply in spades if Iran attacked it. So unless the US wishes to destroy Western economies it must do a deal with Iran.
“The ongoing attack on Syria, if successful and after a long bloody sectarian civil war, will lead to the installation of another fundamentalist Sunni government in a geographically critical state. This is lunacy. Even imperial stalwarts like the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Pat Lang ask:
Are we really happy that Sunni jihadis are disassembling a government that does not represent Sunni fanatics in the likelihood that it will be replaced by one that will?”
Isn’t this the same argument made against the revolution in Egypt? Won’t the same argument be made in Jordan? Abbas wasn’t happy about the last set of elections forced upon him by Condi Rice either.
Annie, I assume you supported the Arab Spring in Tahir Square; why the reluctance in Syria? I’m by no means singling you out as this tactic/argument is often made by the progressive crowd. It would seem to me like giving aid to to a pro-Romney PAC in downtown Detroit and giving the exact amount to an anti-Romney PAC in Ann Arbor.
Is simply this: Mubarak was “our” imperialist stooge who signed a cold peace with Israel, and Assad is Iran’s imperialist stooge who aids Nasrallah? I can find no other explanation why Mubarak was so unpopular with the progressive crowd but Assad is. Your accusation about Iran and Israel works both ways.
I would simply answer this way. Would Israel be happy getting rid of Assad and replacing it with a government that reflected the will of the people, effectively cutting off the Iranian supply route to their proxy in Lebanon? Yes, of course. But will you acknowledge Assad has the blood of perhaps 20,000 dead Syrians on his hands? Will you admit his regime butchers Palestinians, Sunnis, artists, cartoonists in a desperate mission to survive?
From Russia TV and Press TV we get murky tales of conspiracy, jihadists, foreign fighters backed by Mossad. From YouTube we get endless videos of slain Sunnis. Yes, some could be staged, but the UN is also documenting the genocide. For Assad is shelling his own people as we debate this topic.
Annie, if your honest with yourself, would your views on Syria be different, had Assad signed a peace treaty with Israel as Mubarak had supported? If Assad had taken the Golan back and turned his back on Iran and Nasrallah, I think your views would evolve. I’m not calling you a liar. My side did the same thing with Mubarak. They overlooked his flaws for her supported peace with Israel and assisted Israel’s actions in Gaza. But you do realize your side loses moral weight when you support this doomed butcher.
BTW, the leftists anti-Israel crowd is by no means unified supporting RT or Press TV accounts regarding Syria. Max Bluumenthal, by no means a pro-Israeli stooge, is speaking out loudly against Assad.
Re Syria: The usurping zionist regime illegally occupied the Golan heights 45 years ago & after they illegally occupied this land they ethnically cleansed 124000 Syrians from that land they destroyed 134 ancient villages in that land they then illegally annexed it in 1981 they built up to 38 jewish illegal settlements & they are plundering the natural resources there are wineries and olive factories & most importantly controls the water which make up for a ¼ of all Israel’s usage of that liquid gold. The very idea that Israel cares about Syrians, or anyone is, is insulting our intelligence.
Let’s stipulate for a moment that Israel and Israelis writ large care nothing about Syrians. Is it possible that some Syrians care a great deal about returning to Israel? Like now! Even if each word, Blake, you write is the gospel truth, does Assad care about Syrians or is that insulting our intellect to ask?
link to ynetnews.com
Obviously Syria wants Golan Heights back and I am not clicking on any zio propaganda site that refuse comments critical of “Israel”. I boycotted ynet ages ago.
Are you a “biorabbi” or a real Rabbi? Thjere’s stiff penalties for impersonating religious workers, BTW. Why can’t you answer this simple question bio? Think of the authority your posts would have, if we all knew they were the shillings of a real Rabbi.
And if you are not, everybody will admire and respect you for insinuating that you are in your internet handle. That’s so clever!
I’ll add biorabbi to the unleashed posses of terror tale perpetrators. Another bot in the propaganda machine that’s desperate to divert attention from the very real horrors of the israeli occupation and the coming full ethnic cleansing it is planning.
Syrian regime compared with Israel’s regime? it’s a walk in the park. Most of the world, on every questionnaire for the past 10 years consider israel and it’s goblinesque blood libel spouting Israel Firsters in the US to be the real threat to world peace. Israel which has set itself against human rights because, well – we’ll tell you who’s human and who is not.
Just look at the blood thirst dripping from all our news outlets – kill, kill, kill they scream in unison! bomb, assassinate and murder Arabs and persians! plant bombs everywhere an assassin can penetrate! who cares if some “innocents’ people are bombed? they were not israeli and not jews so why shed too many tears? besides, how can you be innocent while Arab? that’s the attitude among the MAJORITY of Israelis. And the majority of zionist supporters in the US. Just cannon fodder, like drone collaterals.
The blood hungry mobs on our TV, the Engels and the Maddows wound up like marionettes to cover the “progressive” flank. Biorabbi and jonah fredman and hophmi oggling and jostling for window seats to drop confetti on the assembling hordes of wrath. Coincidence or a mob unleashed? biorabbi is just doing some rear guard action here. Let’s make it a little tougher for him to obfuscate, shall we?
@Danaa,
I concur and share your frustration with this profound murderous immorality. I hope Greenwald really unleashes when he gets to the Guardian, and spray-paints this country with the blood of others we’ve spilt. I can’t even have small talk with people anymore.
“I can’t even have small talk with people anymore.”
Yes, exactly. Stick to business, and get the hell out of there. Before I hear something which will make me very unhappy. I could tell you stories… sometimes the saddest aren’t the people who possess the “murderous immorality”, it’s the ones who are twisting themselves into knots trying to take on the appearance of that morality against their better self. When you see that, it’s nasty, and it is, if you’ll excuse an old man, terribly sad in women.
When you see that, it’s nasty, and it is, if you’ll excuse an old man, terribly sad in women.
Especially when they are drone on and on, or upon.
Annie, I assume you supported the Arab Spring in Tahir Square; why the reluctance in Syria?
for the most part, i am against foreign intervention. i was against it in libya too. my main reasoning for not supporting the opposition in syria is because poll after poll of syrian people indicate the majority supports the regime. therefore forcing regime change (forcing is not my wording btw) and imposing a western backed gov will likely not go smoothly. the opposition can be easily as brutal and violent as the regime, and yes i have no problem acknowledging the regime has been violent.
the difference with tahir is it was home grown and home supported and that is what you need for a successful revolution whereas, like romania, this has had cia support from the get go. the US has no problem supporting shady characters if they get the job done. we even call them freedom fighters when they serve our objective (like bin laden in afghanistan). the campaign has continually had massive support for disinformation, massive..therefore it is difficult assessing events. but, imho, syria was one of the more stable ME countries throughout our iraq fiasco.
i think iran is the prize and syria is being destabilized prior to an iranian destabilization in the same way israel tried and failed to wipe out hezbollah in 06. hezbollah is the most immediate dangerous threat to israel. syria is low hanging fruit. the whole region is slated for reform (neocon new map). first syria, then lebanon, then iran. or perhaps iran prior to lebanon.
so, there is a huge difference between Tahir Square and what happened in syria, had there been any similarity at all (even a smidgen) there would have been no need for foreign interventionalist instigating violence. none.
annie- on this one i read “poll after poll of the syrian people”…
do you think people answer polls honestly in syria? would you like to buy this bridge over the east river? how about swampland in florida?
yonah, maybe you missed my link down below:
you wanna refute my argument come up with some sources. this reminds me of the green revolution in iran..poll after poll before and after the election confirmed the iranian majority favored ahmajenidad, people believe the western press saying the opposite. so come up w/the evidence cuz your offering to sell a bridge means nothing sans the evidence.
I assume you supported the Arab Spring in Tahir Square; why the reluctance in Syria.
No equivalence.
Biorabbi: “…I would simply answer this way. Would Israel be happy getting rid of Assad and replacing it with a government that reflected the will of the people, effectively cutting off the Iranian supply route to their proxy in Lebanon? Yes, of course…”
Actually, the rest of your post is pretty good, but I disagree with the above, on two scores.
First, I fail to see why a government that ‘reflected the will of the [Syrian] people’ would be unwilling to continue to allow whatever support Iran actually does provide to Hezbollah to continue.
The reasoning there seems to be vaguely akin to that of many who supported the protestors in Iran. I was all for them myself — but there seemed to be some unexamined assumption that a more liberal regime in Iran would immediately cease to pursue an atomic bomb. It’s a moot point now — but I think they would have been sadly disappointed. Not one Iranian ever suggested they would be willing to do any such thing. Similarly with Syria and Hezbollah. Almost regardless of the form of government that emerges in Syria, it’s going to be more than happy to allow Iran to supply whatever support she wishes to Hezbollah.
Second, I would think Israel would definitely be averse to a democratic regime in Syria. It would be the worst possible outcome.
(a) If Syria were a democracy, it would be difficult to muster international support for US or Israeli action against it no matter what it did. Remember that ‘reactor site’ Israel bombed a while back? Not a peep of censure — picture Israel getting away with that if Syria were an authentic democracy. Israel would have no freedom of action.
(b) dictators — particularly weak, unpopular dictators — are easily bullied. They cannot afford setbacks. An Assad may not like you — but you can always twist his arm.
Democracies, by contrast, are essentially irresponsible. It won’t even help if you intimidate the leadership. They’re even more intimidated by the voters — and attempts to intimidate an entire people will just lead to demands that their leaders stand up to you. Joe the grocer isn’t afraid he’s going to lose the next election. He doesn’t care. You might get somewhere if you nuked a city or two and killed the odd million — that might scare Joe. But you can’t do that, and so you’d never be able to terrorize a democratic Syria.
For these reasons, I am confident that whatever else Israel might or might not want, she does not want a government in Syria that ‘reflects the will of the people.’
It is possible that Israel wants to engineer the fall of Assad — although I can’t see what she actually expects to gain. She may be seeking to promote simple anarchy, or she may have hopes of creating a regime akin to Iran’s, or she may have some fantasy akin to that which led her into Lebanon in 1982 — but Assad really was about as good as she was going to get. It’s unrealistic on Israel’s part to hope for a regime more to her liking. There’s a significant chance that whatever emerges will be stronger, less exposed to Israeli attack, and at least equally as hostile to Israel.
Maybe not, of course. It could just be bloody chaos there for ten years. Israel may find that gratifying — but I doubt if it will materially benefit her. It’s not like Assad was ever going to be able to give up the Golan or anything.
“…And now the Times reports that the U.S. is engaged in discussions with Syria’s neighbors, including Israel, to forcibly end the Assad regime…”
This helps to explain the somewhat unusual failure to act (compare and contrast to Libya).
My guess is that Israel would just as soon see nothing done. First, Assad served their needs quite well. Second, even if he doesn’t ultimately survive, the further the process of disintegration proceeds in Syria, the longer it will be until it recovers enough to pose a threat, and the longer the window in which the chaos will permit Israel to intervene at will.
Watch for Israel to snaffle more territory as a ‘buffer zone!’
My guess is that Israel would just as soon see nothing done.
that makes no sense. why do you think they have “Scores of Israeli intelligence officers operating along Syria’s border” and are talking about invading if they’d prefer nothing done. and netanyahu is calling for regime change. so i think you’re off here by a long shot colin.
Annie, again I will not dispute that scores of Israeli intelligence officers are operating along Syrian borders, but are more than scores of Iranian intelligence officers and just plain officers operating on and within Syrian borders? As for Israel calling for regime change… do you anticipate a joint Zionist-Saudi regime?
Annie, as for Iran’s role in Syria, are they just protecting the Syrian people from the wrath of the Salafists and the Zionists? Is that their mission?
i would imagine irans mission in syria is to protect the regime. that’s how friendly regimes treat each other. the syrian regime is protecting the people from salafists who are utilized to stir up crap and destabilize regimes or militant groups we want toppled. all of this completely overshadows the will of syrians who want reform (and yes there are a lot of them). i would like to see reform in syria, i just don’t think it necessarily requires regime change.
“… i would like to see reform in syria, i just don’t think it necessarily requires regime change.”
I see one’s ideological preferences as moot at this point when it comes to Assad.
The regime has had it: it’s lost all legitimacy. All advocating a continuation of Assad’s hold on power can do — whatever one’s motives — is to prolong the bloodbath.
Sometimes as issue moves beyond ideology. Unless you firmly believe in the moral value of causing human misery, at this point it’s clear that Assad has to go.
The regime has had it: it’s lost all legitimacy.
not to the majority of syrians it hasn’t.
link to guardian.co.uk
Majority of Americans oppose intervening in Syria, new poll finds:
link to news.yahoo.com
Annie Robbins, do you support the large numbers of IRGC Kuds force, Hezbollah and Russian occupation troops in Syria? Do you support the IRGC Kuds force and Hezbollah mass murdering Syrians? (It seems like the Russians are hedging their bets more. My hope is that Russia and the FSA negotiate a deal causing Russia to switch sides and back the FSA.)
If the FSA and Russia do reach an agreement that involves permanent Russian bases in Syria, will you support Russia and the FSA?
The way I see it, Syria has only one legitimate government, the FSA and other Syrian opposition groups. Assad has no legitimate claim to being in the Syrian government. He is at best the leader of a large militia that is mass murdering Syrians under his orders.
Annie, gotta say this — your quiet (yes, your writing has a quiet tone; doesn’t mean it’s not bunker-buster powerful) relentless determination to look at ‘just the facts’ about Syria is awesome.
kudos & thx
thanks allen. rusty just linked to a great guardian article in eleanor’s syria thread. i rec.
link to guardian.co.uk
An even more recent poll suggests that if Americans understood what it takes to enforce a no-fly zone, they’d have problems supporting that as well: although 58% said that they would support enforcing a no-fly zone, only 22% would support bombing Syrian air defenses — which is around similar levels of enthusiasm for sending American troops to Syria (14%) and sending arms to Syrian rebels (27%). So, as long as intervention is couched in terms of “humanitarian” intervention and “non-lethal” aid, many Americans are willing to go along. Just don’t mention that bombing Syrian air defenses is required to enforce a no-fly zone.
“…so i think you’re off here by a long shot colin.”
Indeed I may well be. I am conscious of not having a clear understanding of the situation inside Syria — it’s just that I suspect most others don’t either.
However, I will point out that whatever their stances, unpopular dictators do have an advantage from Israel’s point of view: they are easily intimidated, blackmailed, and suborned. If Israel doesn’t recognize that it would serve her interests for a weakened Assad to linger on, perhaps she should.
However, as I say, I may be wrong. My analysis could be mistaken. It’s just that — again as I say — I don’t find anyone else’s analysis especially convincing. In general, many people seem to be attempting to fit their externally-generated world views on to Syria without much actual consideration of what is actually happening in Syria.
many people seem to be attempting to fit their externally-generated world views on to Syria without much actual consideration of what is actually happening in Syria.
i agree with this. we are in the middle of a heavily financed propaganda/misinformation war and (as i mentioned earlier) this is taking place by design. iow, by design the truth of what is happening is not supposed to be clear to western audiences. so i don’t see an actual will of the people not to consider what is actually happening in syria. there are a lot of people who have been going to great effort to understand what is going on there. people just really differ on their perceptions. what do you think of : link to moonofalabama.org
there are patterns in this madness, if you look.
here is a new fresh post by b @ moa link to moonofalabama.org
so it’s not for lack of trying. but please do not confuse your own ‘actual consideration’ with that of others. many people have been following syria very closely. don’t believe everything you read in the western press. this has simply been taking way too long for western comfort and they are stepping up the discourse, and possible preparing for a blatant military intervention.
Annie Robbins, I detect a sectarian bias in your comments. Almost every Sunni in the world (including inside Syria) backs the FSA. The FSA also has the support of most Syrian and Lebanese Christians. [Though not openly Aoun, yet. Although we all know how much Aoun privately hates Assad.]
The victory of the FSA over Assad is inevitable. But we don’t yet know what the new Syria will be. Most of all the nonsense discussions about Syria are not about the merits of the FSA versus Assad . . . they are about the different visions for post Assad Syria.
“…that makes no sense. why do you think they have “Scores of Israeli intelligence officers operating along Syria’s border” and are talking about invading if they’d prefer nothing done…”
That could be taken as evidence Israel has no intention of doing anything at all. In case you haven’t noticed, they love to surprise people. If they were going to do something, I imagine they’d be loudly professing their reluctance to interfere.
Colin, don’t get sucked into the prpaganda that Israel would rather have “the devil it knows”. this is just chafe being spread around to obscure whose fingers have been on the trigger all along. It’s only the ‘how’ Israel is struggling with, not the ‘what’. Israel has a plan and they are quite confident they can deal with any “salafis’ that come out of the woodworks in Syria. They are confident the brotherhood can be tamed, because the brothers have the ‘weakness’ of religion (Israel’s PTB perception, not mine). Salafis were used to go after Vittorio Arrigone, and Hamas could not call them on it outright. Mossadick machinations were probably behind the strings pulling and pushing the trade tower bombers. All it takes is a little organizational skill – the rest is management of perception and that’s where jewish genius comes in – and it is genius in that department – done it with and since the bible – the greatest informercial ever produced – didn’t ‘they’? (yes, who are ‘they’? read Marc Ellis’ treatise and you shall find). To the Israeli brass, salafis and ‘jihadis’ are mere malleable tools – they don’t consider them very bright, and even if some are (Atta certainly was) they have reason to believe they can be manipulated, directed, and mollified through a few goodies, religion wrapped. Sometimes, conspiracies just all about ‘lending a helping hand’ – see it unfold in Syria so we can all learn how it’s done.
part of the propaganda is to hide Israel’s finger prints on the Syria violence. But it’s there for all who care to look. What annie said is right.
I believe, based on what we are seeing, and along with many smart strategic thinking commentators, that Israel and the US have concluded that Syria needs to either be taken down or ‘neutralized” before iran can be ‘dealt with”. This is the military/tactical scenario being unfolded. Syria was a ‘risk’ factor that complicated the murderous anti-Iran operation. They must have concluded that from al the war games. they keep playing. But time, for some reason, is of the essence. Syria, according to the war gamers must be brought down before the Fall rolls in. Hence the flurry of activity.
Yes, there are unintended consequences. Do you really think israel cares a hoot about those/ they just need the green light – didn’t get it on Iran [yet] so they are off and running over Syria. Assassinations are their tools of choice and false flag operations their specialty. The israeli entity (speaking of a collective) has coddled a strange angry Golem to its bossom, which is growing more threatening and out of control every day. That’s the way with monsters, no? what’s done in Syria does not stay in Syria, does it?
To think that we have come to depend on Russia and Syria for sensibility? for saving humanity? that is truly strange. I just hope they – and like-minded strategic friends – are up to the task.
Israel and the US have concluded that Syria needs to either be taken down or ‘neutralized” before iran can be ‘dealt with”.
that’s what churkin said too. it’s russia’s position, probably china’s also. kind of a no brainer if you ask me.
Do you really think Israel controls the FSA? :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
So far the Israelis have not supported the FSA in any meaningful fashion. Israel should support the FSA. If Israel did, it would be appreciated by the FSA and likely most Syrians. But Israel hasn’t yet. Not very smart.
“…If Israel did, it would be appreciated by the FSA and likely most Syrians. But Israel hasn’t yet. Not very smart.”
Indeed. However, fortunately Israel’s policies are not based on rational considerations, but are attempts to realize a demented view of the world in which as many as possible of those around her are perpetually kneeling in terrified submission.
Lieberman’s ‘he knows how to talk to the Arabs’ really says it all. Israel is locked into an endless, futile attempt to intimidate everyone, all the time. Hence, for example, all those gratuitously provocative overflights over Lebanon. If Israel were rational, she would do no such thing. I wonder how many recruits those have gained for Hezbollah?
Israel really cannot make friends. It’s just not in her. Those she can, she coerces. Those she cannot coerce, she manipulates. Those who make the mistake of trusting her, she betrays.
thanks danaa, i forgot to say that.
Also, a scary, unstable, “Islamist”-faced regime in Syria would boost Israel’s “surrounded by enemies/give us money” image/political strategy here, while not appreciably (or at all) increasing the actual threat.
Then there’s the Leviathan gas/oil shale find and how an unstable Syria (and a resulting weakened Lebanon) enhances Israel’s ability to claim more of it.
Agree Danaa, Israel has a lot to gain with a weakened Syria.
Possibly, but just leaving Assad alone at this point would produce a Syria that would be about as weak as it could get. He’d be a massively unpopular dictator attempting to control a restive population with an unreliable army. He would have to resort to such brutally coercive measures that no one could openly support him.
If anything, Israel might want to help the guy out a bit. He’s liable to fall otherwise.
I get what you are saying, Colin. There’s probably a small spectrum of useful and/or “manageable” unstable outcomes (from the Israeli PoV, not the Syrian people’s). It’s tough to pick exactly which one will be the outcome of choice (choice meant to say that outside players are definitely determining the outcome).
I would argue, fwiw, that a weakened propped up Assad would always be a target for future/deeper instability spikes of an unknown variety, perhaps unmanageable. Perpetual, nurtured conflict might produce a [violent] equilibrium of sorts, a la Lebanon or Iraq, resulting in exploitable political mush as far as the eye can see.
It sucks any way you look at it though, for Syrians.
“ColinWright says:
July 24, 2012 at 2:39 am
Possibly, but just leaving Assad alone at this point would produce a Syria that would be about as weak as it could get. He’d be a massively unpopular dictator attempting to control a restive population with an unreliable army. He would have to resort to such brutally coercive measures that no one could openly support him.
If anything, Israel might want to help the guy out a bit. He’s liable to fall otherwise.
”
Another perceptive comment. Many in the Islamic world say the same thing.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Yemen –all of whom have quietly but brutally suppressed their own civil protest movements– are clamoring for intervention and/or the collapse of the Al-Assad government. They want to cripple the Alawite power structure in Syria, and have been linked to efforts to fund and arm the Free Syrian Army. Israel and the U.S. see Syria as an extension of the Iranian sphere of influence in the Middle East, and thus they too want to see the collapse of Al-Assad’s government. The power vacuum that remains will inevitably be filled by Sunni influence, which will sever Syria’s link to Iran. This, too, is the hope for Lebanon.
I see a domino-effect plan, with the collapse of the Al-Assad regime in Syria leading to the targeting of Hezbollah in Lebanon. The U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia want to see the dissolution of the Shia Crescent from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut, and with that the revocation of Russian influence in the region. All that starts with Al-Assad.
Young student Druse in the Syrian capital seem to be yearning for a return to the Israeli Golan Heights ASAP.
link to ynetnews.com
i’m shocked. and why are they visiting syria now? makes for great headlines bio.
They are not visiting they are studying there in universities.
The Druze community in the Golan Heights never severed their ties with Surya (for patriotic reasons publicly but basically they have families there and they were never sure that Israel wouldn’t return the heights eventually so they kept the act for 40 years now)
Israel allowed the Druze of the Golan to send their kids to study in Surya and allowed some amount of trade as well (apples i believe) .
allowed some amount of trade as well (apples i believe)
touching. how generous of them.
The fundamental flaw in Annie’s piece here is not her writing and it’s not what she writes is part of the truth or that certain reporters believe their truth.
The problem is that is this. The United States is completely irrelevant and so is Israel. To a lesser extent the Iranians and the Turks are irrelevant. 19,000 people have died. Countless more have vanished. Had Assad pulled a Mubarak and left after 190 had died, we might have been facing a different situation. The reality is the Sunnis are 80 % of the population and are ruthlessly ruled over by the Allawite population who represent less than 20 % of the population. And Assad has the stupidity to murder, bomb, rape and butcher the initial non-militant protesters. Now, there is vengeful hatred on all sides. The Allawites are righting for their lives. If America, the Mossad and Iran ignored Syria, the reality of conflict would not change, just the timetable of the bloodbath.
…and there you have it. He agrees with me!
It must be the truth.
wow colin, strange bedfellows.
The United States is completely irrelevant and so is Israel.
uh, the contributions of the global superpower and her little apartheid expansionist sidekick mean jack sh*t which is why we stand back and do nothing because the chips will all fall into place without us/NOT.
we’re not stupid. there’s a canyon of difference between you and/or hasbara central wanting us to believe The United States is completely irrelevant and so is Israel and the US and israel being completely irrelevant.
so please, spare us.
“wow colin, strange bedfellows…”
It’s perfectly possible for two people with diametrically opposed views to agree about something.
Biorabbi would probably agree with me that 2+2=4. He might even think global warming is real.
Anyway, I just thought it was amusing that his post so closely echoed mine.
Lighten up. Cat fights aren’t going to help anyone except Israel.
It’s perfectly possible for two people with diametrically opposed views to agree about something.
i just said strange bedfellows, i didn’t pull out my claws.
and i wouldn’t call that just ‘something’. that’s a hella lot to agree with. and it’s perfectly possible for two people with converging overviews to disagree about something.
Annie Robbins, are you American? If so, sorry to break it to you. US share of global GDP is dropping. Only 18% now. America owns an even smaller percentage of global wealth. America is increasingly owned by foreigners, immigrants, children of immigrants, ethnic Americans and minority Americans.
Your delusions of grandeur are just that . . . delusions. America isn’t the all powerful controller of all the universes you think it is. Sorry if hearing this hurts your ego and sense of self importance.
Do you know what foreigners mean by “ugly American”? In part they mean the perception among some Americans (such as you) that everything that happens in the world is due to America or related to America . . . which is the height of self centered arrogance.
America’s strength comes from humility and action in the present, not Annie Robbins style brow beating: “We are important . . . we still really matter . . . we really do . . . blah blah blah”
Gosh, you are one perceptive fellow, anan (oh yeah!) but you can’t be Dick Witty. Witty knows darn good and well who Annie Robbins is.
“We are important . . . we still really matter . . . we really do . . . blah blah blah”
so, you’re whining i didn’t go along with your The United States is completely irrelevant and so is Israel bs and you’ve decided making up quotes i didn’t say will alleviate your fox paw. fail. bottom line, US/IS spends bucko bucks/resources and manpower tweaking reality in syria..and not because we’re ‘irrelevant’. go tell susan rice she is irrelevant, i’m sure she’ll fall at your feet fool.
speaking of irrelevant..that’s about as much energy i’ll expend responding to your worthless chattering critiques.
America is increasingly owned by foreigners, immigrants, children of immigrants, ethnic Americans and minority Americans.
That’s one of the the definitions of being an American, bub.
Correct MRW. You get it. :-)
So the 10% that is Christian doesn’t exist?
“So the 10% that is Christian doesn’t exist?”
Precise sectarian breakdowns for Syria do not exist. There are also Kurds, Druze and other types of Syrians.
It looks like about 2 out of 3 Christian Syrians support the Syrian opposition. [Many polls have been taken, but I take issue with their methodologies and accuracy. So it is more like two thirds with a large margin of error.] A smaller majority of Lebanese Christians also support the opposition. Even those who nominally back Assad generally hate him but fear Saudi Arabia and the Takfiri more.
For example Assad’s best Christian “friend” might appear to be Aoun from Lebanon. Look up what the Assads did to Aoun’s family. If Aoun were not scared to death of the global Takfiri network and KSA, imagine what Aoun would be doing instead.
anan,
If the Lebanese ain’t scared of israel, you honestly think they’re scared of saudi frigging Arabia?!!!
Go talk to an Aounist before you strut your ‘father-knows-best’ verbiage around here.
‘Ahel Sham’ ain’t your usual garden variety Arab. Or do ALL Arabs look and think the same to you?
anan,
here are some Takfiris for you:
link to businessinsider.com
It’s becoming more and more obvious of the very close links between the FSA and Al-Qae’da, even in the Western press. And yet you portray them as freedom-loving resistance fighters of the most righteous and noble character.
Also, I assume you understand Arabic, so see this:
link to youtube.com
This happened to the home of an Allawite family. Presumably simply because they are Allawites. The same way your hated Tafkiris used to stop cars and buses at checkpoints throughout Iraq and pluck out the Shia passengers by checking their identity documents, only then to torture and execute them while allowing all others to go free.
“…I believe, based on what we are seeing, and along with many smart strategic thinking commentators, that Israel and the US have concluded that Syria needs to either be taken down or ‘neutralized” before iran can be ‘dealt with”. This is the military/tactical scenario being unfolded. Syria was a ‘risk’ factor that complicated the murderous anti-Iran operation. They must have concluded that from al the war games. they keep playing…”
I think this sort of analysis attributes way too much significance to the maneuvers of what are actually a rather factionalized, short-sighted, and irresponsible set of state leaders — and way too little to the actual popular dynamics of the situation inside Syria itself. In other words, it’s secondary what Israel, the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, and whoever I’ve forgotten would like to make of the situation inside Syria — the situation is the result above all of factors beyond their control.
Repeating my caveat that I don’t know what the hell I am talking about, I perceive these elements in the Syrian situation.
1. Longstanding if muted discontent with authoritarian rule. Many may have accepted the Assad regime — few have loved it.
2. A drought. How many of those pontificating are aware that Syria has been undergoing a severe drought — that the slums of the big cities are bulging with unemployed, impoverished, and very discontented refugees from dessicated rural districts? This was another big pile of tinder right there.
3. The example of the ‘Arab Spring.’ This has been kind of a litmus test for the solidity of every Arab state from Morocco to…Syria. Some — Morocco, Algeria, Lebanon, perhaps Jordan — are weathering the storm so far. Others — Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and now Syria — have not.
So I’m not denying the ‘black hand’ of Zio-American evil — I just don’t see it as the primary actor here. It may be able to influence events, but it is not driving them.
colin, i’d like to make a little analogy here that might lend itself to you understanding my perceptions of the revolt of the people in syria. think of the US, both the tea party and the occupy movement. both very popular, both with wide swaths of the public who are unhappy with the government, both with legitimate concerns.
the people in syria who revolted at the beginning of the arab spring had legitimate complaints and when the uprisings happened they got out into the streets. now, imagine the US had been funding ‘democracy’ in syria (we were) for awhile. when the arab spring happened this became an excellent time to step up that agenda because it blended with a natural uprising. but, like both the tea party and the occupy movement in and of themselves they are not ready to sweep the US the same way the uprising in syria didn’t have the power of the majority of the people to sweep the regime.
but, at that time if one inserts heavily funded foreign intervention coupled with a disinformation campaign coupled with violent actions one can use those uprisings to create a massive destabilization. iow, what do you think would happen if foreign interventionalists started pumping weapons and funds into the tea party? what are they, a couple hundred thousand strong? what if they formed militias and started trying to take over sections of cities? what if some of the foreign assistance was in the form of mercenaries?
this is what i mean by it not being completely homegrown. your number 1, that could be said about the US too, but how many people here would support armed insurrection at this point? and remember the cia backed coup in romania was instigated by agent provocateurs claiming Ceauşescu was slaughtering his own people, and he wasn’t. which isn’t to say assad has not been involved in the killing. but some of the investigations of these massacres are not following the narrative of western press. where ever there is a strong western backed agenda the narrative just should not be believed.
watch the humanitarian war link to laguerrehumanitaire.fr
do not believe all the accusations.
“…this is what i mean by it not being completely homegrown. your number 1, that could be said about the US too, but how many people here would support armed insurrection at this point? “
You lose me there. Sorry, but the government of the United States is not the same as the Ba’ath regime. You wouldn’t still be able to post if it were.
I am growing increasingly disgusted with the United States myself. But I have little patience for the sort of exaggerated and sweeping demonization of it that has been a staple of far-left ‘progressive’ discourse for the last forty-fifty years. I don’t even find that phenomenon interesting to discuss.
We can probably get along just fine as long as the topic is Israel and the shortcomings of our policies towards her. However, the further we stray away from that, the less likely we are to agree, and inasmuch as I would prefer to keep the conversation focused on Israel (and what to do about her), I’d just as soon let our disagreements go unexplored.
colin, my point was not to compare the US gov w/the baath regime. my point was to compare home grown movements vs home grown movements heavily supported by foreign influence. here’s my point about syria:
if one inserts heavily funded foreign intervention coupled with a disinformation campaign coupled with violent actions one can use those uprisings to create a massive destabilization.
so you ‘lost me’ when i asked you what you would think of an influx of foreign influence and money into the political/election process of this country. it seems to me you just want to ignore, or refuse to accept what were seeing in syria is very much a result of foreign influence. ‘Longstanding if muted discontent with authoritarian rule’ is something present in many many countries however it doesn’t rise to the level of a popular revolt that would, on it’s own, cause the toppling of the government..like we saw in tahrir square. but even in a country like the US, things would seem very different if foreigners were arming the discontented. and if they were our government would likely react exactly as assad did.
A 1982 article by Oded Yinon, a former high-ranking Israeli official, in a publication of the World Zionist Organization. “The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target.”
link to members.tripod.com
“…in the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan…. (Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars, p. 130).
link to globalresearch.ca
“If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war… our children will sing great songs about us years from now.” (Michael Ledeen, following 9/11/01 attacks)
My comment: What is going on in the Middle East right now is a consequence of imperial geostrategy. Empires don’t do humanitarian interventions. We are witnessing the attempted implementation of the neocon plan to remake the Middle East to secure imperial hegemony and Israeli Middle East dominance. This is a high stakes blitzkrieg which seems to be succeeding so far.
Kieth that allegation that what happened in Iraq in 2003 is related to Israel is dead wrong.
What does “imperial hegemony” mean?
Many believed that free democracies in the middle east advanced American and international interests. They were and are right. The middle east dictators were de facto enemies of America and the international community.
“Many believed that free democracies in the middle east advanced American and international interests. They were and are right”
And would you like to tell me where American or international intervention has resulted in “free democracies”? Don’t forget, you used the plural, so there must be more than one.
“What does “imperial hegemony” mean?”
What does “dictionary” mean? What does “Google” mean? But that’s all right, if you want to trumpet your ignorance of the basic terms of the discussion, that’s fine with me.
Canada 1812.
The US tried to annex Upper Canada and Lower Canada. A series of events leading from that attempted annexation lead to a free democracy. See – the US actively trying to prevent a freedom has managed to sew the seeds of a democracy. Stunning, isn’t it.
Oh – that’s not what you meant. Well carry on then.
It is the height of arrogance to think that one country can create a free democracy somewhere else. However free countries can facilitate and help other countries achieving their own success and their own freedom and their own democracy.
My point is that successful affluent free democracies generally benefit the entire world, including Americans (since you seem to be American.)
RE: “A US backed U.N. Security Council resolution that would impose sanctions on Syria was vetoed by Russia and China Thursday. U.S. ambassador Susan Rice called the veto ‘dangerous and deplorable’ and said the Security Council had ‘failed utterly’.” ~ Annie Robbins
MY COMMENT: I wonder what she’s running/auditioning for.*
I certainly would not buy a used car or anything else from her after seeing the way the U.S. and its allies flagrantly, grotesquely, and shamelessly abused the UN Security Council resolution on Libya (authorizing member states to establish and enforce a no-fly zone) in order to instead pursue their own regime change agenda.
Frankly, it was disturbingly reminiscent (perhaps not entirely coincidentally***) of Israel’s “intervention” in Lebanon in the summer of 1982.**
Consequently, as I see it, the U.S. and its NATO allies absolutely cannot be trusted to intervene in Syria in a responsible manner.
Because the U.S and its NATO allies so badly abused R2P in regards to Libya (much like they abused the right to defend themselves by invading Iraq), I simply cannot support any intervention under any circumstances on their part no matter how seemingly deserving the purported beneficiaries of such intervention might be.
* SEE: “Good career move by Susan Rice”, by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss, 1/25/12
SOURCE – link to mondoweiss.net
* FROM WIKIPEDIA [Lebanese Civil War]:
*** P.S. ALSO SEE: “America Adopts the Israel Paradigm”, by Philip Ghiraldi, Antiwar.com, 7/05/12
LINK – link to original.antiwar.com
P.P.S. RE: “When the Israeli cabinet convened to authorize the invasion, Sharon described it as a plan to advance 40 kilometers into Lebanon, demolish PLO strongholds, and establish an expanded security zone that would put northern Israel out of range of PLO rockets.” ~ from the above excerpt of the Wikipedia article on the Lebanese Civil War
SEE: “The War of Lies” , by Uri Avnery, gush-shalom.org, 09/06/12
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to zope.gush-shalom.org
“If one asks Israelis now, 99.99% of them will say with all sincerity: “We had no choice. They launched katyushas at the Galilee from Lebanon every day. We had to stop them.”…”
They don’t even need the time lag. In 2006, the day after Israel started its invasion and Hezbollah began retaliating with rockets, I was arguing with Zionists who were already asserting that Hezbollah had begun firing rockets first and Israel had invaded second.
I swear, these people have a thought process where the facts are simply altered as necessary to fit the argument. I think some of them actually believe what they say.
In 1982, Lebanon was in the middle of a very violent civil war. The PLO and Lebanese Sunni Arab militias were at war with Druze, Christian and Shia (Amal) militias. The Druze, Christian and Shia militias invited the Israelis to help them fight the PLO, Sunni Arabs and Syrians.
Part of the Israeli motive appears to have been to strengthen their Lebanese allies.
By 1982 the Lebanese State writ did not extend to Southern Lebanon, from which attacks against Israel were launched.
Arafat was a nasty person who mass murdered many Lebanese and probably more than any other person caused the 1975 to 1989 Lebanese Civil War. It is Arafat that forced other Lebanese to invite Israel to help them.
After Israel occupied Southern Lebanon, let us say the Israeli relationship with their Lebanese allies evolved.
General Matti Peled, my political associate at the time, firmly believed that Abu Nidal had acted as an agent of Sharon. So do all the Palestinians I know.
So does Victor Ostrovsky. Said Abu Nidal was a Mossad NOC in one of his books of “fiction” that he said he couldn’t write any other way.
How would Victor Ostrovsky know anything about the inner workings of the Mossad, wasn’t he a paper pusher who was kicked out early on?
Good Avnery article, Dickerson. Well worth reading.
I see a lot of what is going on here as ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’
If Israel is bad, those opposed to her must be good, so the logic goes. And at its extreme, we even have people trying to talk themselves into supporting Assad.
It is perfectly possible for two appalling regimes to be in opposition to each other. Witness Hitler’s invasion of Russia. That didn’t suddenly make Stalin a good guy.
Now of course, there could be the argument that we supported Stalin because he was fighting Hitler — and fighting him quite effectively. However, Ba’ath Syria has never been much more than a punching bag for Israel, so I don’t see how that argument would apply.
There’s every reason to oppose Assad, and now that he’s finished anyway, even more reason to. Get rid of him as soon as possible. Whatever is to follow, we’ll get to it that much sooner and with that much less waste and misery.
Colin Wright, have you ever explored Basher Assad and Syria from Assad’s point of view?
Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett have –
In 2005 Flynt Leverett published a book about Assad’s leadership. He discussed it here, on the day after Syria pulled out of Lebanon, in a forum introduced — “with pride” — by Martin Indyk at Brookings Saban that paired Leverett with Seymour Hersh.
link to c-spanvideo.org
Foreign Affairs reviewed Dr. Leverett’s work on Syria and Assad here —
Flynt & Hillary Leverett have discussed Syria a number of times on their blog –
link to raceforiran.com
Charlie Rose has interviewed Basher Assad several times:
2006 link to charlierose.com
2007 link to video.google.com
2010 link to charlierose.com
There is no excuse for Mondoweissians to express uninformed opinion.
Great comment, AllenBee. Smart.
i agree. Allen’s comments are excellent informed contributions to the thread.
@AllenBee,
Excellent suggestion to listen to the C-SPAN talk “Inheriting Syria: Bashar’s Trial by Fire.” I second your admonition: “There is no excuse for Mondoweissians to express uninformed opinion.”
In the shadowy alleyway of the middle east, two cloaked figures conspire:
Israel: How can you let Syria’s Bashar defy you, humiliate you before the whole world?
America: We’re working on teaching him a lesson, girlfriend.
Israel: Why don’t you just nuke Damascus – at least Shock & Awe them?
America: We can’t afford it. The Russians, you know… we can’t afford WW3. And by the way, neither can you.
Israel: True, but we gotta do something, I mean YOU gotta do something about the Syrian egg on your face.
America: You gotta do something ’bout the Hizbollah/Iranian egg on your face too.
Israel: We’re trying and it ain’t working, but… say, how about we get–
America: Someone else to do it, uhuh.
Israel: Yeah, someone else like–
America: Saudi Arabia and Qatar versus Syria and Lebanon.
Israel: Perfect! An inter-Arab war should weaken the whole lotta them!
America: Especially if Iran steps in to help one side and Turkey the other.
Israel: Yes! Genius! We can be the white power of the middle east again!
America: Yes you sure can, girlfriend. Here, let me lick the egg off your face clean.
Israel: You lick my egg and I’ll lick yours (slurping noise)… mmmm hey is that a salt and pepper shaker in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
America: Oooh girlfriend – you sure know how to spice me up!
I am sure you are joking Taxi. The entire Sunni world isn’t anyone’s tool.
“I am sure you are joking Taxi.”
It just so happens, anan, that he has certified audio and video of the entire conversation, and the outcome.
Mooser dude, I’m a dudette.
You’re the only one anan who’s talking about the “entire Sunni world”.
And it don’t look to me like you understand much about geopolitical strategy, or the black art of high-powered politics.
Oh, I’m sorry, Taxi. And you know, I knew that, too, and just typed “he” out of habit. My apologies, and it won’t happen again. I’m glad I saw your correction.
No biggie mooser – it don’t bother me really. I’d still like you just the same if I were a man :)
Hahaha Taxi!! But I think Israel is the one with the salt and pepper shaker in its pocket.
LOL I love it Taxi. Kinda reminds me of the whole “rise of the Shi’ite Crescent” talk by King Abdullah of Jordan and others in the Gulf a few years back.
See here: link to guardian.co.uk
At the end of the day, the blame must lie with Assad. It is Assad that maintains the current brutal dictatorship that crushed any voice for change. It was Assad that made it impossible for a dissenting voice to be heard without violence.
Mr Saigon, encourage you to refrain from cheerleading for war without assessing all sides of the situation.
I just spent 90 min watching this video & it was time well spent
“Inheriting Syria,” w/ Flynt Leverett, Seymour Hersch, Martin Indyk
How is blaming a brutal dictatorship for creating the context where the dissent can only be voiced through violence is ‘cheerleading for war’? If Syria had a free and open society where people weren’t thrown in jail and tortured for criticising Assad and his regime, there most likely would be no violence.
and
===
re:
“brutal dictatorship” What are the grounds by which you stand behind (warrant) the claim that Assad’s rule is a “brutal dictatorship?”
When did it become a “brutal dictatorship?”
Is Assad singularly responsible for creating a “brutal dictatorship?”
Has Assad done things that demonstrate that his rule is anything other than a brutal dictatorship?
Is there evidence pointing to Assad as the singular source for brutality?
Is there evidence that others may be responsible for brutality in Syria?
re:
“[Assad] create[s] the context where dissent can only be voiced through violence.”
How do you know that?
Can you provide evidence of a pattern where dissent in Syria could be voiced only through violence? Can you provide evidence to show that Assad and only Assad is responsible for creating that context?
1. In 2005, Seymour Hersch said that “Basically, the neocons look at Assad and see Saddam. They want to take him out.”
2. Also in 2005, Flynt Leverett said and wrote that the Bush administration was “inclining toward a policy of regime change” in Syria.
3. In 2011, Hillary Clinton made public statements that “Assad is not indispensable; he should step aside.” (Assad countered that he does not answer to the West, he answers to the Syrian people. )
4. In May 2011, Franklin Lamb visited Syria and was astonished to find it peaceful, prosperous, and bustling.
5. In 2012, numerous reports revealed that the United States, Saudia Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar were funding, assisting, harboring and providing intelligence and other support to foreign fighters in Syria.
-Since Max Weber, nation states have held the principle that the state holds the monopoly on violence.
- United Nations Resolution 2131 (XX) declares that “1. No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are condemned.”
6. Also in 2012, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, was on the ground in Syria and witnessed armed “protesters” firing upon Syrian civilian protesters as well as attacking and firing upon Syrian army troops who were carrying out a state army’s assigned duty: protecting the Syrian people from an armed rebellion.
7. In Feb. 2012 the people of Syria voted in a Constitutional Referendum. Syria claimed that a majority of the Syrian people approved the Constitutional reforms. (The vote was dismissed as a “farce” by numerous Western sources. But then, the vote for Hamas was rejected, as were the results of Iran’s 2009 vote.)
How do these sets of facts either support or undermine the warrant that “Assad is a brutal dictator who is creating the context where dissent can only be voiced through violence?”
Cool cut & jive-up on syria, AllenbBee.
I’m perplexed to find Syria’s brutal and dictatorial credentials questioned. Syria’s human rights record, or lack thereof, has been well document by various human rights organisation for decades and, frankly, is beyond dispute. HRW, for examples, describe Syria:
“The government has been engaged in a brutal crackdown against demonstrators involving commission of crimes against humanity, such as arbitrary detention, torture, and the killings of thousands of civilians.The crackdown has escalated into indiscriminate military assaults on residential areas and has led to a dire humanitarian situation. Thousands of Syrians have sought refuge in neighboring countries and many more are internally displaced.”
This is echoed by Amnesty International’s description of Syria:
“Government forces used lethal and other excessive force against peaceful protesters who took to the streets in unprecedented numbers to demand political reform and the fall of the regime. The pattern and scale of state abuses may have constituted crimes against humanity. More than 4,300 people reportedly died during or in connection with the protests and during funerals of demonstrators, most apparently shot by members of the security forces, including snipers. Tanks were used in military operations in civilian residential areas. Some members of the security forces were also killed, some allegedly for refusing to fire on protesters and others in attacks by defecting soldiers and other individuals who joined in opposition to the government. Some prisoners were released in amnesties but thousands of people were detained in connection with the protests, with many held incommunicado and tortured. At least 200 detainees reportedly died in custody in suspicious circumstances; many appeared to have been tortured.”
Now, to address each of your points in order:
1-3, 5) The US looks after their own interest as does Russia and every other country on this planet, that is hardly news. The geopolitical game of these powers didn’t, and does not now, force Assad to maintain a brutal dictatorship. That is of his, and his late father’s, own making. Neither Russia nor the US, forces Assad’s regime to imprison, torture, and kill those who oppose him. Assad does that by himself by his own choice.
4) I know people who have worked in Syria and they say that Syria is a great place. During christmas celebrations, decorations were hanging from the walls, across the street, and attached to the wall of a local mosque. However, they all said that you can’t talk about any negative aspect of Assad and his regime with people in Syria. They simply don’t answer or politely ask you to stop asking them.
6) Could you please tell me where in the video Mr Lavrov said that he, himself, had witnessed armed protesters firing upon Syrian civilians? I watched the whole interview and didn’t hear Mr Lavrov say that.
7) 57% of the population participated and it guaranteed Assad’s rule for at least another 14 years. The Baath party would still be in power and it would only ‘open’ the road for multi party elections further (I.e. undetermined period of time) down the track. In essence, it changes nothing and looks more like a ploy to buy time.
To summarise; there’re no avenues for dissident voices of change to be heard in Assad’s Syria. Especially since there is no free press (Syria is ranked 176th out of 179 in Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index for 2011-2012). Violence begets violence and in this case, it is Assad and his regime that have invited it.
People who use the word ‘perplexed’, I don’t know, they just annoy me.
The UK cheerleader for the US agenda for Syria (the Guardian) has a headline now:
“Bio weapons will be used if Syria attacked, ministry warns”
The BBC’s headline for the same news is:
“Syria ‘will not use’ chemical weapons on its own people”
Says it all really. I’m with Annie – the only sites that appear to be consistently not US propaganda organs on Syria are MoA and rt.com.
What is MoA?
RT.com is fair on Syria? Do you know that Russia and the USSR before that has had permanent military bases in Syria for decades? Do you know about the extent of Russian aid to Syria, including military aid? Do you know how many weapons Russia exports to Syria per year?
Personally I think Russia’s support for Assad is unwise. Turkish, Arab and European diplomats should be trying to mediate some kind of a deal between Russia and the FSA to persuade Russia to switch sides in Syria.
Straightline, interestingly that you don’t consider any Sunni, Turkish or Arab (other than Al Manar) website to be a source on Syria. Do you similarly discount all Iraqi news sites on Syria?
How sure are you that Assad will not use WMD? Remember what papa Assad did three decades ago?
What is MoA?
anan, some posters, prior to participating in the comments on a thread, find it helpful to actually read the main post and open some of the links. if you did this you would understand the reference.
“Personally I think Russia’s support for Assad is unwise. “
It’s only unwise if you assume Russia’s concern is other than domestic in the first place.
I think Putin wants to pose as the protector of the Christian minority in Syria. This will gain him some credit with the Russian Orthodox Church — and strengthen his position at home.
Could be wrong about that, but…
In principle, politicians often seem to be bumbling, irrational fools in the international arena. Once you realize that the actual effects of their actions in that arena are entirely secondary to other considerations, then their behavior becomes more intelligible.
It is always about how it plays with the folks back home. Putin could care less how popular or unpopular he becomes in Syria. He is deeply, sincerely concerned with how popular or unpopular he becomes in Russia.
I think Putin wants to pose as the protector of the Christian minority in Syria. This will gain him some credit with the Russian Orthodox Church — and strengthen his position at home.
Could be wrong about that, but…
putin is hugely popular at home. i can’t recall how popular but think it is in the 80 percentiles. to clearly understand putin/russia’s stance on syria best listen to their UN representative:
they are not interested in a succession of regional wars on their doorstep and an escalation of US/IS hegemony. common sense.
Colin,
Russia considers Syria as their gateway to “warmer waters”. It is of vital strategic interest to them, especially that America is trying to close in on them, using Poland and the eastern block as military bases.
They’re all playing politics. Pure and simple. When you are that powerful, you have no idealism, often no humanitarianism. You just do what serves your interests. We call this: pure politics.
In this specific case, I think that this misunderstands what motivates politicians — regardless of the type of regime.
It is always all about how it will play with the folks in Peoria. Neither Romney nor Obama give much more than passing consideration to our own actual interests in the Middle East, Israel’s interests, or anyone else’s interests in the region per se.
They do care — deeply and sincerely — with what the folks back home will think of what they do. This is also true of Netanyahu, Putin, and I have no doubt Ahmedinejad and even King Abdullah of Jordan. You lose the home town crowd, it’s all over. Ask Mubarak.
Hence the phenomenon that the international behavior of nations can appear almost nonsensical. You think they’re maneuvering in pursuit of their interests — but that subtlety misstates matters.
Their leaders are maneuvering in pursuit of their interests. Leaders who fail to do that aren’t going to be leaders for very long.
“…putin is hugely popular at home. i can’t recall how popular but think it is in the 80 percentiles…”
Yes — and I would argue that’s because he always concerns himself with how it will play with the folks back home.
Why would he change? He’s uncomfortable with those numbers and wants to bring them down a bit?
ColinWright says:
July 23, 2012 at 7:54 pm
In this specific case, I think that this misunderstands what motivates politicians — regardless of the type of regime.
It is always all about how it will play with the folks in Peoria. Neither Romney nor Obama give much more than passing consideration to our own actual interests in the Middle East, Israel’s interests, or anyone else’s interests in the region per se.
They do care — deeply and sincerely — with what the folks back home will think of what they do.”
>>>>>>>>
They don’t actually care-care what the folks back home think….. because most of them think the folks back home are stupid and can be led to support whatever they want them to.
Politicos spends millions on ‘spinning’ an issue to get people support it.
That ‘s why all political speeches and campaigns are nothing but jingoisms and sound bites.
“They don’t actually care-care what the folks back home think….. because most of them think the folks back home are stupid and can be led to support whatever they want them to.”
If that were true, every president would get elected to two terms and no dictator would ever fall from power.
Since the truth is otherwise, either (a) most presidents and dictators are remarkably inept — which I don’t believe…
or (b) you are substantially misstating the situation. People are certainly stupid and easily deluded. However, sadly for the leaders, stupidity is no guarantor of docile behavior, and it’s remarkably difficult to establish a monopoly on information and influence. You think Obama likes what most Evangelical preachers are probably saying about him right now?
Witness the fix Assad is in — and he’s probably a reasonably sharp guy. This is a tough job. Don’t underestimate it. Why, I bet nine out of ten of us here would make a total hash of things if we were either president or ruler-for-life. We’d be out on our ear toot sweet — even if the people we were ruling are morons.
In 1910 or so, Diaz got curious about this Madera guy who was actually seriously trying to run against him. He called him in, and asked him what he thought his qualifications were to be president of Mexico.
Madera answered that he was honest.
Diaz commented, ‘Senor, to rule Mexico, a man must be more than honest.’
Or as Lyndon Johnson put it, ‘I never trust a man unless I’ve got his pecker in my pocket.’
Note that neither individual actually managed to hold on to office, as it turned out. Don’t think that just because the people are dumb that means they’re easy to manage — or even fool. While you’re trying to fool ‘em, other people are trying to fool ‘em too. Plus, they want what they want when they want it and if you don’t give it to them, they blame you. It’s a trick.
…and it’s the only trick that matters. Obama can leave the entire Middle East a smoking wasteland. If the people at home are still happy with him, he’s back in. Conversely, he can bring perfect peace, make the entire planet US Government property, end global warming, and save the Mountain Gorilla. If the folks back home are nevertheless displeased, he’s out on his ear.
How does stirring up trouble in Syria win any support from the people in Peoria?
I’m not convinced Obama is stirring up trouble in Syria in the first place.
It is worth asking how much of the US generated trouble in Syria (and Iran) has been stirred up by Obama. Much of it was set in motion by neocon policies during the Bush administration, some of it even earlier during the Clinton administration. Hillary’s statements and actions related to Iran and Syria are more enthusiastically belligerent than Obama’s (but then, as the former senator from New York, she really knows how to work the buttons on the Democrats’ ATM). So is Obama giving Hillary free reign at State to accommodate her political ambitions (and is she leaving because she wanted even more) and putting just enough pressure on Iran and Syria to appease the desires of major Democratic donors? Or is escalation in Syria and Iran really part of his long range plan for America’s intervention in the Middle East (because that is where his rhetoric is pointing)?
Rusty Pipes, I don’t think you intend this, but you sound like a propagandist of the genocidal mass murderer Asssad.
Kissinger and Nixon actually liked the Assads. Carter and Reagan tried to ingratiate themselves with the Assads to solve the Lebanese civil war and to win a nobel prize for peace in the middle east (Israeli/Arab peace process). GHW Bush senior further strengthened US Assad ties to the point of a de facto alliance. Papa Bush actually gave Lebanon to Assad. [Allowing Assad to devastate Aoun, Jumblatt and Geagea]. In return for the international community giving Assad a country to kick around, Assad sent about 20 K troops to KSA, including approximately 300 T72 tanks.
Clinton tried to ingratiate himself himself with the Assads as well, to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Even GW Bush’s administration tried to ingratiate themselves with the Assads.
I don’t blame Bush himself for it. I believe that Bush had a good heart and was clueless to so much that happened around him. Too bad, he could have been a great President.
Even worse, Obama (also a good man) mistakenly tried to make friends with Assad, under the mistaken thesis that America should open her hand of friendship to enemies and Arabs.
The only crime America has ever been involved in with respect to Syria is being too close to the evil Assad.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Another word to the wise; the US doesn’t have a comprehensive thought out foreign policy that accounts for correlations between different interests and trends aimed at maximizing America’s long term interests (general equilibrium versus specific equilibrium.) US policy is much more piecemeal, arbitrary, disconnected, chaotic, disorganized and spontaneous than that. There is no grand vision at the whole of government level. Almost never has been.
The same can be said for the world’s other great free democracies.
I have no idea what you mean by “pressure” on Syria.
Regarding Iran, the US never has seriously backed the Greens in a strategic way. It would be a good idea if the US did back the Greens. A good conspiracy theorist would say that the US hasn’t backed the greens because some Likudnics want Iran to be ruled by a complete nut imbecile such as Khamenei who can’t help but be hated by the Iranian people and the world. I wouldn’t say that though; the US is far too chaotic to think things through like that.
It’s amazing how you’ve warped my comment about Bush, Obama, Hillary and the neocons’ remaking the map of the middle east (Plan for a New American Century) into propaganda for “the genocidal mass murderer Asssad.” Glenn Greenwald has said similar things about the Obama administration and PNAC. America may not have one overriding foreign policy plan, but it does have competing plans from various thinktanks and other interests, some of which have become dominant not because of the scholarly expertise of their proponents, but because of their political influence — hence the Arabists have been eased out of the State Department and replaced with neocons and neolib hawks.
I can just imagine in what regard Nixon held the 9-year-old Bashar when he left office in 1974! If only Hafez hadn’t let little Bashar play with real tanks as though they were toys, we could have had peace throughout the Middle East decades ago.
Umm so Syria is the underlying reason for the problems in the Middle East? I beg to differ.
Roya the largest security problem in the world comes from the Takfiri. Assad has played with them in the past. But he isn’t the largest problem. Still the FSA is very close to defeating him. They just need a tiny bit of help.
anan,
You’re so full of sweeping statements that I’d personally like to give you the Golden Broom Award.
Taxi, I guess you disagree with the assertion that Takfiri are the biggest security threat to all 7.1 billion of us.
To clarify, the world has many threats: values, spirituality, global warming, global product development (or technological innovation or living standards), global poverty, global security, etc. Global security isn’t close to being the largest of these threats, but it is one of them.
Within global security by far the largest threat to the world comes from Takfiri. After this I would put (2) global organized crime. (3)North Korea. (4) Shia extremism (mostly a response to Takfiri crazies). (5) The small percentage probabilities of a bad outcome to transition in China. [using the formula = probability of said event * how bad that event would be if it came true.] (6) Other assorted stuff.
In general the world has had sharply improving global security for some time. For example (5) and (6) have been falling sharply as global threats. There is a lot of progress in (2) or organized crime as well. The rise of a powerful free democratic Iraq and the gaining strength of the Iranian greens are reducing the threat of Shia extremism (4). These are forces organic to the Shia world. (3) North Korea remains unsolved. A conflict there could cause a global financial crisis and sharply reduce the living standards for billions of poor people around the world. However the Takfiri threat remains. Including the threat of of Takfiri WMD attacks provoking a global financial crisis.
Taxi, not sure what other generalizations you might disagree with.
“…Within global security by far the largest threat to the world comes from Takfiri. After this I would put (2) global organized crime. (3)North Korea. (4) Shia extremism (mostly a response to Takfiri crazies). (5) The small percentage probabilities of a bad outcome to transition in China. [using the formula = probability of said event * how bad that event would be if it came true.] (6) Other assorted stuff…’
It strikes me that almost regardless of what your criteria are, Israel far outranks any of these.
She is prone to carry out murderous attacks literally anywhere in the world, has an ideology that makes literally any act defensible, sees the rest of the world as inherently either her dupes or her enemies, and has one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals.
She is at least as crazy as the ‘Shia extremists,’ far more heavily armed than North Korea, quite as unscrupulous as ‘organized crime,’ and far more demonstrably a real presence than ‘Takfiris.’ She is also in an inherently extremely exposed position. Several perfectly possible shifts in global attitudes could leave her feeling that she is in danger and must take action. Given that she usually reacts to feelings of insecurity with outbursts of violence (and has all those nuclear weapons) that’s not good at all.
So tell us what to do to eliminate the Israeli threat. Then we can think about what to do about ‘Takfiris.’
Oh my oh my, anan. My soft spot for you was growing but I just don’t know what to make of this.
Dude do you even know what “Takfiri” is? Yeah it’s not a name of ANYBODY, it’s not a name of a thing, it’s not even a name – I just asked a distinguished Arab literati ’bout this. “Takfiri” appears to draw from the Arabic root Kifr (blasphemy), Kafer is a blasphemer, takaffur/takfeer is blasphemous – but no such Arabic word as Takfiri – the addition of the ‘i’ vowel at the end is really weird sounding to an Arabic ear in this instance – only on the net did I find such a reference to “Takfiri” and it seems to be connected to islamophes who’ve ignorantly Anglicized the word and they’re using it to describe some kinda self-hating muslim. So like, WTF are you talking about dude when you put “Takfiris” (self-hating muslims) top of your list of evil-doers in the world?! Oh please don’t tell me, I won’t believe the authenticity of whatever you might have to say to me anyway. Really, don’t bother dude – I ain’t here to indulge you in the slightest.
I don’t mind to tell you though that your fear of islam ( oh yeah right and N. Korea thrown in there for decoy) clearly shows through your posted verbiage. And here how can I not mention the absurdity of your vaguest of vagues: “global organized crime” for second-place evil? I mean whoah anan – you mean the faceless, addressless evil that is global and organized – that one mashugana?!
You’re constantly mixing sympathy and provocation in your posts – putting a tea bag in a cup of nailpolish remover for the injured. If you’re doing this on purpose, or, if you’re not doing this on purpose, either way anan, you should definitely be given the Golden Ass Award – and I ain’t talking Apuleius here.
Delusional rambling. The FSA don’t have a chance unless NATO steps in, and the FSA have backed themselves into a corner.
Experts agree that the FSA’s vitories have been hyped if not entirely non existent.
link to blogs.channel4.com
yep
Looks like there is a chump here.
Takfir is a very old word. It describes people who call other muslims Kafir for not being sufficiently orthodox (calling them traitors to Islam.) The Takfiri hate muslim traitors more than they hate nonmuslims for they have seen the truth and the light and turned away from it.
I prefer to use the term Takfiri to “Jihadi” (since Jihad is a good positive word and the people who do this sort of blasphemy against Islam don’t deserve to be called Jihadi) or “Salafi extremist.” “Takfiri” is shorter to write. The phrase “Takfiri” is also used by many Iraqis, Iranians, Afghans and Pakistanis to describe their hated enemies. The “Takfiri” are an enemy that nonmuslims and muslims can unite to fight.
Taxi, are you attacking all muslims around the world who criticize (or try to kill) Takfiri? There are hundreds of millions of such muslims around the world. You would be unwise to anger them.
Nope, no it’s not. “tafkiri” is not even in the Persian dictionary so that rules out Iranians and Afghans and if I spoke Urdu and Arabic I’d debunk that too. Please stop pretending you know all about Islam, the Middle East and its people. You’re making a fool of yourself and as you can see by the replies you’re getting you’re also pissing off a lot of people in the process. My soft spot for you is no more.
And the Golden Mug Award goes to ananski.
K, well, I REALLY feel awkward doing this. But here it goes: I have to agree with anan on this takfiri business (shit, I’ll never forgive myself for this).
The words has appeared in Arabic over the last 10-15 years. It’s not in formal Arabic of course, but that’s normal since most countries speak their own dialects and a lot of the times new words get created and added as you go along. Basically it refers to the salafi/wahhabi phenomena of casting the “kufr” or “shirk” label on anyone and everyone who doesn’t fall within their very narrow and extreme interpretations of Islam. Shias are kafirs, sufis are kafirs, Zaidis are kafirs, hoothies are kafirs, etc..
In any case, it’s a minor issue. anan speaks out of his rear-end more often than not, so no biggy if we throw him a bone.
I should add that the word Takfir (without the i) does exist as a verb in formal Arabic, from the root of kufr, and means to blaspheme or disbelieve. Takfiri is the newer modified noun that has become popular especially in Iraq during the sectarian violence. As a concept, it goes back centuries. Ibn Taymiyya, the head master and icon of all salafis and wahhabis, living some 1000 years, was a prime example of “Takfiri”, since almost no one (not even the mainstream) fit within his version of what acceptable Islam is. Most Saudi scholars also are the same. In common parlance, it basically means to excommunicate, but in this case usually gives the license to kill/rape/plunder anyone who doesn’t fall under the acceptable, orthodox umbrella of what is considered the correct interpretation of Islam by these Takfiris. Sorry for going off-topic, thought I should clarify.
Surely, ending with an emoticon wasn’t necessary to indicate that my closing paragraph was snark.
Averroes do you just agree with the meaning or that tafkiris are the “greatest security threat to all 7.1 billion of us”?
“anan speaks out of his rear-end more often than not” Please elaborate?
You cannot always oblige but you can always speak obligingly. Why are you insulting me? Why can’t you say I respectfully disagree with you on such and such? Haven’t I always treated you with respect?
Roya: Yes I do actually. But only if the new age definition of a takfiri is “an entity that seeks to dominate/subjugate the world through the means of force and violence (or the threat thereof), in order to establish a culture, ideology, political and economic system, and way of life that is consistent with the worldview and perspectives of that dominant hegemonic power.” Insert the qualifications “America”, “democracy”, “consumerism”, “capitalism”, etc… where you see fit :)
Averroes,
“Takfiri” is then Iraqi slang, not mainstream Arabic, picked up and used by Blackwater psychos and other unsavory agent-provocateurs (anan?) when they were murdering, raping and pillaging Iraq. Did you visit any of the islamophobe sites where the word is often used? It’s part and parcel of their imperialistic white-power jargon . It is the equivalent to a fundie micro band of Arabs calling christian blasphemers “Christiani” and jewish blasphemers “jewishi”. Riiiiiiiiiiiight! LOL and here we have anan trying to mainstream the word uhuh. Any guesses why he’s pushing the use of this esoteric word around cyberspace?
I’m sorry but once you can manage to stop being a two-faced hypocrite, and stop talking tongue-in-butt-cheek, and stop rambling on conspicuously with your insider information about all the inner dealings, thoughts, and deals of the powers-that-be in Iraq and the White House and elsewhere, all the while providing no proof or evidence for any of your assumptions, statements, or arguments….then perhaps after that my level of respect towards you may change. Until then, I shall follow the words of the wise King Solomon when he advised “Answer a fool according to his folly”.
There is no such thing as “mainstream Arabic”, there is the formal Arabic taught in the schools, used in print (newspapers, books, etc..), and spoken by the officialdom in press conferences, speeches, etc… And then there is the spoken Arabic of the various countries, different dialects in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, and the rest of the Arab world. Essentially all Arabs have to learn two languages, their spoken Arabic and the formal one taught in school.
But I do understand your point. The same can be said of the words jihadist, or hajji… this second word, in arabic, simply means a man who has performed the Hajj to Mecca, is meant to be a title of respect and reverence. The US soldiers in Iraq began using it to mean anything from “thief” to “insurgent”… i.e. anything negative, any “bad” Iraqi was called a Hajji. It’s racist and disgusting. No doubt anan perhaps worked with the military in Iraq, or for a contracting company, since he seems to know some much about their inner dealings, the MNF-I, etc… If I’d have to bet on it, I’d say he worked as a translator or interpreter.
When your ‘axis of evil’ matches that of Cheney’s, that’s an insult to several billion people. When you insult using passive-aggressive words from 5th graders like “chump” (LOL!), you deserve ridicule and impolitenesses like “anan speaks out of his read-end more often than not”.
If you can’t handle the occasional rough and tumble of MW, you should complain to your maker and not to the poster or moderator.
Taxi, “Takfir” is a very old word. It has been used to slur and justify the murder of tens of millions of muslims over more than a thousand years.
Why do you want to honor the salafi nutjobs by calling them “Jihadi”, the term they would prefer to be called?
Curious, are the 650,000 Iraqi Security Forces “Blackwater psychos and other unsavory agent-provocateurs”? Are PM Maliki, President Talabani, Najaf Marjeya and Quom Marjeya as well?
“hajji” is a good word and should not be used to depict bad people.
Averoes,
Almost all popular Arabic movies are Egyptian – we can therefore say that 99.9% Arabs understand the Egyptian dialect – we can therefore additionally and safely consider the Egyptian accent/dialect as commercial mainstream Arabic. Yes I know there’s classical Arabic, shared by all Arabs and used in commerce, academia, courts of law etc. (I’m an American who spent ten years of her childhood living in the middle east, have visited numerous time since, am sunning my buns on the beaches of Beirut as I type this).
As for ananski, I don’t think for a sec he’s a translator. More like a pencil pusher in a cubicle doing research work for Blackwater, or he could very well be a mosadist who’s worked in Kurdish Iraq. Whatever his background or type is, I really don’t care wtf anan is.
Taxi:
I’d have to disagree with you on the “Egyptian accent/dialect” being considered mainstream Arabic. Think that’s somewhat of a stretch. Syrian/Lebanese Arabic (in movies, TV shows, etc..) are just as, if not more, popular than the Egyptian variety. I for one have difficulty understanding Egyptian Arabic, but then again I didn’t grow up in the Middle East. The closest Arabic to classical Arabic, from what I can tell, is Yemeni Arabic. Generally, people have a more difficult task at understanding Khaleeji Arabic than the Egyptian and/or Shami variety. And even harder than this would be North African dialects (Algerian, Morrocan, Libyan to some extent). But these are mere details.
Agree with you on anan, just had a hunch. He seems to know intricate details about MNF-I and their various strategies and policies and actions in Iraq, something that even an average Iraqi wouldn’t know. So it only makes sense that he’s dealt with or worked with them in some capacity. Just an educated guess. Of course I wouldn’t be surprised if he simply makes the stuff up as he goes along, to give him some semblance of authority on these matters. Also a possibility.
Regarding Arabic movie making, Cairo is the closest thing in the Arab world to Hollywood. It produces the most movies and distributes them, especially around the Arab word. It is an industry there in Cairo, whereas in Lebanon, few movies are made – yes there is a movie business there but not an industry, yet, notably, more Lebanese movies reach a western audience than Egyptian ones. There is practically no Syrian movie business or industry. So I really do beg to differ here. As far as the Arab world is concerned, Egyptian movies rule – so obviously the Egyptian dialect is understood by most Arabs – despite the fact the Lebanese dialect is easiest and clearest to their ears.
Syria has (or had) a thriving TV series (musalsal) industry, sometimes thought to the best in the Arab world, and has also some of the best actors. This has especially kicked off in the last 10 years or so. You can notice how they dominate in this area in Ramadan, the prime time for release of new drama series.
On the other hand, when some of the very popular Turkish series or movies appear on Arabic TV stations, and have been modified or given voice-overs (mudablaj) from Turkish to Arabic, this is almost always done in the Lebanese or Syrian accent, not the Egyptian one. Of course this could be for a variety of reasons, but my presumption is because those two are the easiest to understand and follow. Could be wrong though.
But in the move or film industry, I’ll concede, Egypt tops the list. Accent kinda bothers me, personally, but I’m not one to talk since a lot of other Arabs consider the Iraqi dialect both harsh and unintelligible.
While we’re on the subject of Arab movies I’d like to recommend the Palestinian film Paradise Now. Despite the furor of the Israelis, it won a Golden Globe and was nominated for an Oscar and is available to watch here. Amazing film. Also Taxi be careful. I’m sure you already know this, but Israel is planning yet another attack on Lebanon, it’s just a matter of time before the terrorists execute it.
Aver,
Honestly, I don’t know anything about Arabic TV, considering that I don’t even watch cable TV back home in Los Angeles (cancelled my account after the Gaza assault from disgust with main stream media). I only watch movies, either in theaters or DVD’s at home and I get my news from the internet.
You’re quite right however ’bout the Lebanese accent being the clearest and some say, the sweetest to the ears. And despite their limited resources, their movies are the most sophisticated in the Arab world – also due to freedom of speech there in Lebanon and their long tradition of open artistic expression.
Paradise Now – love love LURVE that movie!
Roya,
And Lebanon is planning on defending itself by hitting back at tel aviv and “beyond and beyond and beyond”, so promised Nasrallah.
I ain’t worried being in Lebanon in the slightest. Also, I survived israel’s Operation Grapes of Wrath when I happenstance was visiting the Lebanon in 1996 – wicked bastards filled my ears up with so much sound of explosives it took weeks before my ears stopped ringing. That’s why this time round, I brought with me from LA the best ear-plugs that money can buy – just in case eh hahahahaha!
The Turks and Iranians have also come out with some pretty good TV mini-series recently, a lot of it dealing with the Ottoman era and early Islamic history. Sort of like an alternative discourse and narrative to the story usually presented in mainstream Arab countries. One really good one called Mukhtar al Thaqafi, originally in farsi, with english subs, can be found here:
link to youtube.com
They also had it done with voice-over in Arabic.
Well Taxi I guess that makes you a survivor of Israeli terrorism. And I sure hope that Nasrallah isn’t talking out of thin air–imagine the Israeli horror if Lebanon fights them to a standstill again!
Roya,
Nasrallah don’t talk outta thin air. He’s a resistance leader – he ain’t a politician who lies for the sake of votes and for his corpo friend’s economic advantages either. Israel takes his words seriously – as do people around the region.
Hizbollah, without even hitting tel aviv, snatched israel’s mighty deterrence capabilities from right under its nose in 2006 and emptied out israelis from a third of the country’s land mass. Ponder then the consequences on the whole of israel when “an airport for an airport, a hospital for a hospital, a neighborhood for a neighborhood”, the promise of Nasrallah, will be realized. Chilling and ugly for both countries no doubt. But the Lebanese are rooted in their land and legitimacy and they will stay on to rebuild, as they have done many a time before, while israelis, well, let’s just say that it is projected that a good 2/3 will abandon the burning ship – cuz that’s what israel is, a wooden combustible ship, not a land with legitimate ownership deed and stamp.
Don’t get me wrong, the israelis are gonna pummel Lebanon but the difference is that the israelis too are gonna get pummeled. And during this pummeling, with every passing day, more israelis will leave their colonies, more businesses, especially the IT corporations, will close down and re-locate to a safer continent/country – never to return for quite some time.
Now, during this pummeling, add Syria, Iran, USA, Russia, Egypt and the Palestinian armory into the mix and you get a very disturbing picture indeed.
But perhaps this coming war, and I believe it is coming, will be short and quick and humiliating for the colonialist and monarchists and the American people will start demanding that their taxes be spent on alternative energy conversions instead of propping up Apartheid and cruel anti-democratic monarchies in the middle east, for the sake of oil and its pollutant industries.
When will war break out? Who knows, but every day that passes, the region inches closer to it.
People around here already have a name for this future war: the War of Liberation.
Incidentally, as a side-note, this dissident cleric was just arrested in Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago:
link to youtube.com
Very powerful and charismatic speaker with a large following among the Shia minority of Saudi Arabia (also, interestingly, where most of Saudi oil happens to be, which makes the regime very nervous). Since his arrest, there have been protests and demonstrations, but it has been mostly hushed, especially in the MSM, where I haven’t heard a peep about it.
Then there is the news from PressTV and a few other news sources, coming out last Friday, that the new Saudi Intelligence Chief “Bandar Bush” was killed in an assassination type bombing. Not confirmed yet, but the reports seem to implicate Iran and/or Syria (how convenient). He hasn’t made a public appearance since the alleged bombing, so something fishy going on there.
Then you have the horrific masquerade in Syria, with Mossad and CIA seemingly in bed with Al-Qae’da (again), trying to pull Turkey into the conflict, the Kurds trying to capitalize on the confusion and chaos by trying to carve out their own fiefdom.
Then you have Iraq’s central government beefing the Kurds in the North for signing oil contracts separately, without going through Baghdad, with big oil players like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and recently France’s Total. It’s boiling, with both sides making threats and ultimatums.
So yes, I would definitely say something is brewing in the region, much more than in the past. It’s like all it needs is even the slightest flicker to set the whole place up in flames. Domino effect, watch for it.
Taxi you write a very appealing analysis, and I know that Hezbollah, having beaten Israel in a war that they’d planned for 6 years, is no joke. And I’m by no means an expert on Hezbollah military capabilities, but how can you know that this is not just rhetoric? I know Nasrallah doesn’t have any voters or lobbyists to pander to, but it seems to me that any resistance leader would claim to have superior military capabilities when threatened. He claims they can target Tel Aviv but as far as I know Hezbollah rockets and missiles haven’t yet made it past northern Israel.
Agreed, definitely. In the Lebanese-Israeli relationship the Lebanese are fighting for their livelihoods while the Israelis are akin to abused women who go back to their hubbies for more beatings, thinking this time around the abuser will change (or in this case disappear though the chances of Hezbollah disappearing would be the same if Israel were to just pray Hezbollah to death). And it does seem as if they’re already packing to go–just yesterday I read an article at the Forward about the latest trend among Israeli Jews—getting German passports. The article even said, quoting an Israeli “diplomat” at the embassy in Germany, that they hold the second passports “in case things go wrong in Israel.” They’ve already got one foot out the door. Do you remember where you read or heard the 2/3 projection?
I don’t think Syria is going to be in a position to help anybody anytime soon. I don’t see the Russians intervening either—Putin seems to have a fondness for Israel; last year he said, “Israel is, in fact, a special state to us. It is practically a Russian-speaking country. Israel is one of the few foreign countries that can be called Russian-speaking. It’s obvious that more than half of the population speaks Russian.” And besides, Putin tends to have the ‘problem’ of having only one thing on his mind (well, two if you believe the tabloids)–Russia’s best interests (how dare he?) and intervening militarily in a Lebanese-Israeli war would alienate the U.S. too much to be in Russia’s best interests. And I don’t have much hope for the new Egypt–Morsi’s first foreign trip was to Saudi Arabia and if you read between the lines that’s not a good sign.
what intrigues me is why Romney went to Poland, and not to Auschwitz.
Not so much why he didn’t go to Auschwitz, but why he went to Poland. For the Ohio-Wisconsin Polish bloc? I don’t think so.
More likely to connive with Poland to plant anti-missile systems ostensibly to “defend” Poland AND Russia against Iran’s “emerging” (definition: they don’t have ‘em yet, but maybe someday they might) long range missile threat) that are simultaneously intended to keep Russia in check and let Russia know that if Russia gets too uppity, it will be punished — particularly re Iran.
Reading over my comment I realize I must clarify when I say that Israel is akin to an abused woman. I mean this strictly, strictly, strictly in the sense of Israel going back for another beating in Lebanon, not having had enough last time, though even when they do invade Lebanon they will still be the abusers given the style of warfare Israel is notorious for. I would otherwise never insult humanity by giving Israel a gender and in all other contexts the Israelis are the abusers. And of course feel free to privately substitute any terms or combination of terms similar to ‘abuser’ that would not pass moderation on MW.
Roya,
Nasrallah has, so far, been truthful and forthright about everything he’s said he can or cannot do. The reason why you didn’t see hizbollah’s long-range missiles raining on tel aviv in 2006 is strategic: to have hit tel aviv then would have been to expand the conflict beyond the israel-lebanon boundaries, which would not have served the resistance at the time. They did however, down an israeli F16 (or was it two?), and more amusingly, an israeli military boat on cue: while Nasrallah was giving a speech, he said with a smile: “… and our firepower can now reach them even in the waters”, at which point the israeli vessel was hit and shown live on a split screen during his speech.
There is a military pact between Syria, Hizbollah and Iran: if one gets hit, the others will respond with firepower directed at israel. Bashar would love to get down and dirty with israel right now as this would solidify his position in power as legitimate ruler and liberator of the Syrian Golan and the so-called Syrian-Free-Army would be butchered mercilessly by both civilian and army for being traitors of Syria in times of war. Hizbollah will only use it’s more sophisticated weapons (the “surprise” Nasrallah’s referred to a few times) when a regional war breaks out – why show the enemy what big guns you have in a small battle like the 2006 war when smaller weapons will do the job nicely?
Russia will step in to help Syria and Iran if America steps in to help israel in a regional war. Putin is not israel’s bff – yes they have seemingly good diplomatic relations with israel but neither trusts the other in their slightest. When was the last time you heard of Russia supplying israel with anything military, or doing joint military exercises together? Russia voted yes to a Palestinian state at the UN last year, to the seething chagrin of israel. Russia understands that if israel wins the next regional war with the help of the Americans, America will then re-solidify it’s grip on the mid east: something that the Russians do NOT want to happen. Their navy is already in Syrian ports giving presence and support to Syria.
Egypt will go up in arms at israel in the next war – they’ve been waiting since the seventies for a moment like this and now that Mubarak is out of the way, they will join the fray, especially if israel tries to opportunistically ethnically cleanse, by force of arms, Jerusalem, the West Bank or Gaza.
Saudi Arabia will have huge problems internally (a coup by multiple saudi actors) if it doesn’t step in to stop the ethnic-cleansing of Jerusalem, which the israelis are intent on and are already slowly practicing.
Don’t buy into appearances, Russia and America are back to their cold war era. Russia doesn’t care if it alienates USA over control of the mid east. The mid east, especially Syria, is very strategically important for Russia: they refer to it as their “gateway to warmer waters” – and there is no other smoother “gateway to warmer waters” for them (check map).
America will fight in the mid east over oil, while Russia, having oil of it’s own, will fight in the mid east for pure strategy.
Personally, I think when israel fires the first bullet in the next war, it will find it extremely difficult to defend it’s (stolen) land from several fronts, and considering it’s smallness in size, it will be a quick war and a giant gain for the natives – a quick war if the superpowers don’t step in and create WW3.
Because 2/3 of israelis have dual passports, it’s “projected” that these israelis will flee during the next war – if Ben Gurion, the only international airport in israel, is still standing, that is.
Syria and Iran are much larger countries than israel and can take shit-loads of hits on their homefront. Lebanon is used to being the punching bag of israel and have survived many a war with them. But can israelis take, for the first time ever in their history, some 100,000 missiles fired at their homes and businesses from multiple diretions in under 48 hours? Can they handle missiles fired at the gates of the Damona?
I doubt it.
Aver,
The Bandar mystery continues. I’ve even read that it’s the CIA who assassinated him – because he was intending on using Pakistan as the Saudi nuclear umbrella instead of the USA.
link to infowars.com
And so the mystery continues.
Taxi: Impressive–I’m with you on Hezbollah’s military capabilities. No wonder Netanyahu doesn’t have much backing from the Israeli intelligence and military structures on a unilateral strike on Iran.
But do you think Assad is still capable of that? Most of the Syrian defectors have been senior military and security officials and both mainstream and alternative media are saying that Assad is in the deep end. From the perspective of someone in the Middle East right now how would you predict the Syrian situation will unfold?
Russia has succumbed to US pressure on Iran and gone along with the sanctions so far. Sanctioning Iran doesn’t threaten Russia much, nor is it in Russia’s best interests. It looks to me as if Putin has gone along so as not to alienate the U.S. too much so he can gain political leverage elsewhere. If Russia and the US had equal superpower status right now I doubt Russia would accommodate the US like this. Your thoughts?
Roya,
Re Bashar: much propaganda is flying about, most of it is rubbish. Bashar still rules overall despite the bloody unrest ongoing now for some 18 months. He can also still make moves towards liberating the Golan, his joker card that he’s waiting to use opportunistically. It don’t matter if he is successful or not, the move itself will make him an instant national hero in the eyes of his supporters, and begrudgingly, in the eyes of his Syrian detractors. Even if Syria is struck back by israel, Syrian missiles into the illegal israeli settlements in Golan will drive it’s colonialist inhabitants off the land and running fast downhill towards israel’s Ben Gurion airport.
Clearly, as far as Syria is concerned, there is NO Arab Spring happening there, but a cynical and criminal attempt by external forces (Saudi/Qatari/American/Israeli/Turkish) to unseat a native government. Bashar will stay in power, supported by Russia, Syria’s long long long long time friend.
Russia, as far as Iran is concerned, has already agreed with China to veto any resolutions at the UN that support a military strike on Iranian land. Yes the Russians will sign on for Iran sanctions so long as there are clauses and loopholes wide as the sea within the sanction’s dictum. It will occasionally placate USA for purely geopolitical strategic reasons that serve its own power maneuverings , nothing more and nothing less. But one thing’s for sure: Russia will not accept a military strike on either Iran or Syria. This much it has publicly and loudly declared – with China in tow.
Where does that leave USA hegemony in the middle east as of today? Not in a very sure and secure place. And the future for USA influence in the region ain’t looking too good either.
This makes both israel and USA very dangerous at this time and as they lose ground day by day, they just may take a chunky gamble and initiate a regional or even world war, in the slim hope of regaining their military edge and control over the mid east again.
Expect a firestorm in the mideast next year, probably earliest at springtime when the winter clouds have cleared from the skies, to the advantage of the israeli F-16′s and newly supplied F-35′s. Not forgetting though, to the advantage of hizbollah’s anti-aircraft missiles too.
“what intrigues me is why Romney went to Poland, and not to Auschwitz.”
There are signficant Polish votes in the Upper Midwest and in Pennsylvania, especially in the Democratic sections of PA (i.e., not Pennsyltucky – the craptasically regressive and frighteningly bigoted “T” section.)
Also, Poland is the neocon poster child, for reasons that are cultural, religious, economic and military.
Fair enough. I just hope the firestorm never happens, though I would say with 90% confidence that it won’t without US approval.
Ukhti Taxi, I finally got to this thread again. Many responses to many posts. But apparently Annie doesn’t think I should respond to old posts anymore. So I will only respond to this post:
“Bashar still rules overall despite the bloody unrest ongoing now for some 18 months.”
Not completely. Even his allies now think he will probably fall.
“He can also still make moves towards liberating the Golan, his joker card that he’s waiting to use opportunistically. It don’t matter if he is successful or not, the move itself will make him an instant national hero in the eyes of his supporters, and begrudgingly, in the eyes of his Syrian detractors.”
Many have long suspected that the rabbit Assad is actually a semi partner of Israel. I suspect this is partly true as well.
Some pro Israeli types and Israelis are pretty anti FSA. Some think that the Israel are considering helping the Allawites.
I wondered why the Bush administration under stated Assad’s involvement in Iraq 2003-2007. The Iraqi 2nd and 3rd Divisions were fighting a lot of Assad’s men, including many “retired” Syrian army fighters. Could part of this reason have been a reluctance to upset the Israeli/Syrian relationship? I don’t know why. Iraqis had all sorts of conspiracy theories.
“Even if Syria is struck back by israel, Syrian missiles into the illegal israeli settlements in Golan will drive it’s colonialist inhabitants off the land and running fast downhill towards israel’s Ben Gurion airport.”
I think Assad is likely lobbying Israel for help. Maybe through Russia since Israel and Russia are close allies.
Only if this fails would Assad try to attack Israel. If he does that, the FSA is almost guaranteed to win. Assad would anger the Russians, on whom Assad is massively dependent for survival.
“Clearly, as far as Syria is concerned, there is NO Arab Spring happening there, but a cynical and criminal attempt by external forces (Saudi/Qatari/American/Israeli/Turkish) to unseat a native government. Bashar will stay in power, supported by Russia, Syria’s long long long long time friend.”
I am not sure Russia is that wedded to Assad. What happens if the FSA makes Russia a better offer? I would warn you not to underestimate Turkey. Turkey is a true global power with a world class military. Their training of the FSA is a big deal. It is the biggest reason I think the FSA will win and that everyone should be on the right side of that. My hope is that Turkey can really control the FSA. After this the Turkish backed FSA might have to fight a war against the Al Qaeda fighters that are helping the FSA right now.
Assad was deeply foolish to take on the Turks. the Turks will, I think, make sure Assad falls.
“Russia, as far as Iran is concerned, has already agreed with China to veto any resolutions at the UN that support a military strike on Iranian land.”
Russia and China have already supported tough sanctions against Iran. I hope that Iran isn’t bombed. What I have heard about Obama’s circle in recent days worries me a little.
If sectarian arabs and Israelis want to bomb Iran, I don’t see how they can be stopped. But the Europeans and America and the rest of the world should try to keep some distance from it.
“Yes the Russians will sign on for Iran sanctions so long as there are clauses and loopholes wide as the sea within the sanction’s dictum.”
Russia has imposed harsh sanctions on Iran. It has already happened.
“It will occasionally placate USA for purely geopolitical strategic reasons that serve its own power maneuverings , nothing more and nothing less.”
Russia and America should be allies and work together with the rest of the free world to do good.
“But one thing’s for sure: Russia will not accept a military strike on either Iran or Syria. This much it has publicly and loudly declared – with China in tow.”
Why did Russia give Israel, Iran’s air defense grid codes to Israel according to wikileaks? Russia and Israel are close allies.
“Where does that leave USA hegemony in the middle east as of today? Not in a very sure and secure place. And the future for USA influence in the region ain’t looking too good either.”
The US never had much influence in the middle east and never really wanted to get that involved with the middle east. As Thomas Friedman says America sees the middle east as a dumb gas station to buy oil from. With a slight proviso . . . “please be nice to the Jews.”
Rather the powerful Saudi lobby has long manipulated America and other countries. Turkey also has a powerful lobby, but their lobby is generally a force for global good. Sometimes it seems like the Israeli lobby is anti Israeli. So bizarre.
The US never had much direct influence and should never seek it. Rather America should support strong successful free democracies and forces for global good such as Turkey and the new Iraq and Tunisia. And hopefully soon Iran after Khamenei is overthrown. Support them in doing good for the world.
“This makes both israel and USA very dangerous at this time and as they lose ground day by day, they just may take a chunky gamble and initiate a regional or even world war, in the slim hope of regaining their military edge and control over the mid east again.”
Israel and America are different things. Please don’t confuse them. I don’t know what Israel will do. One of my reasons for reading this blog is to find out what Israel thinks and why, and what Israel will do.
“Expect a firestorm in the mideast next year, probably earliest at springtime when the winter clouds have cleared from the skies, to the advantage of the israeli F-16′s and newly supplied F-35′s. Not forgetting though, to the advantage of hizbollah’s anti-aircraft missiles too.”
I don’t think the US will sell top of the line F-35s to Israel. The Israeli models are likely to be dumbed down. For example Israeli F-16s aren’t as high quality as UAE F-16 block 60s. [I don't know why the UAE gets such high end US weapons, other than the fact that they have a powerful lobby.]
anan dude, I ain’t your ikhtak so cut the fake platitudes will ya! (I note your spelleling of Ukht and this in itself informs me in multitudes of ways uhuh).
There are so many ridiculous paranoid cloak-and-dagger statements in your post that I first have to stop laughing and then respond in short:
Go eat an ice-cream and cool off – Assad is NO ISRAELI AGENT! Hahahahaha – sorry pal it’s just too funny.
Assad ten days ago gave Syrian kurds their autonomy, bringing them into his fold and giving the middle finger to Turkey.
And finally, did you forget that the Russian navy is in Syrian ports? You would probably answer that they’re there to aid the rebels and help usa and israel grab at Bashar’s seat of power. Right!!!!
In short: hahahaahhaha!
Thanks for engaging with me and entertaining me with your political slap-stick.
Glad to entertain you as always habibti Taxi.
“Assad is NO ISRAELI AGENT” I wouldn’t call the rabbit an Israeli agent. More a regime the Israelis have been doing business with for a generation and one that has an understanding with the Israelis. You should go to friends of Israel blogs and see how Israelis write about Assad and the Allawites. Israelis have a soft spot for the Allawites and for some bizarre reason I don’t understand prefer Assad to an Ikhwan government. There is even some loose talk among some Israelis about letting the Allawites into Israel if there is an anti Allawite genocide in Syria.
I don’t know the truth of all this. But I am suspicious. Did you read all the nice things Kissinger wrote about the Assads in his books?
The Kurds in Iraq best I can tell had been urging Maliki to take a more anti Assad line. Be interesting to see how Assad’s moves affect Kurdish public opinion. I am pro Kurd, so I might change my mind if the Kurds decide to switch to Assad’s side. We will see.
“And finally, did you forget that the Russian navy is in Syrian ports? You would probably answer that they’re there to aid the rebels and help usa and israel grab at Bashar’s seat of power. Right!!!!”
So far Russia is aiding the rabbit. But Russia can switch sides on a switch if they get the right offer from the FSA.
Truth be told I like the Russians a heck of a lot more than the mass murderer Assad and hope Russia does right. She might yet.
We both share a common concern that the FSA could become sectarian and includes some Al Qaeda Takfiris in its ranks.
This is a long way of saying that I have much to learn. Look forward to learning much more from you on the current threads.
I kindly ask you not to address me with affectionate familiarity – know your boundaries with the ladies lest you be taken for a creep. I ain’t your darling (“habibti”) and I ain’t your sister (“Ukhti”).
Okay? Hope this settles it then.
Now, any time I think of kissinger I just want to puke. It’s his face. Ugly man. With ugly politics. I honestly have no more to say about him than this.
And the rest of your post anan – okay, what kinda “business” you think Bashar’s been having with the israelis? Verifiable?
Secondly, I wanna puke too when I see reference to the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Linguistically, it’s a rape of the word ‘Free’ in all it’s meanings and I would rather not use it to describe a buncha zealot terrorists and loathsome foreign mercenaries. I usually just call them the “Tourist Terrorist In Syria” (TTIS).
The CIA realized in the early days of the Arab Spring, that the only way to stop the avalanche of peaceful protest across the region, and on behalf of our empire and our saudi and israeli friends, was to counter millions of genuine peaceful protestors with sectarian and civil strife, make the streets of their cities unsafe for them to protest in, take the wind outta their collective sail – divide their countries through promoting sectarianism and by instigating, arming and importing violent bloodlusters to destabilize specific neighborhoods of countries who are out of favor, or countries that are black-listed and red-exed on the charts of the Project For The New American Century (yes Obamaless is in on it too, it’s become a corpo-bipartisan scheme). Well they’ve succeeded with Libya and are trying it out in Syria. The neocons and zios think if you weaken Syria, a war with Iran would become easier: the road to Teharan is through Damascus. The jury’s still out on this, but to me it looks like the Syrian plan could back-fire and easily blow up in CIA/Saudi/Mosad faces.
Also, the problem with weakening Syria, is that you practically open the gates of hell to it’s christian and druze and kurd minorities, whom Bashar has always protected. I know that you, anan, don’t like him, call him a mass-murderer etc., but you gotta admit, his presence helps the security and safety of the underdogs/minorities. I don’t agree BTW with how you think of him. He won the last elections by 52%, he promised and wrote up reforms that he genuinely believed in, including constitutional reforms that would allow for more democracy and the cultivation of democratic institutions – and all that the happened was that the opposition absolutely refused to negotiate with him, insisting instead on his complete and utter and immediate surrender of power.
So like when a man who is protecting minorities and sees it wiser to compromise with his detractors instead of destabilizing the country, I dunno anan, don’t you think he’s doing his job as a leader of his people? I ain’t a fan of the Assads and really I ain’t a fan of ANY politician, I don’t like them as people AT ALL, but am bound, by force of reason, to judge them by their responsible or irresponsible actions and not what I think of them – and in this particular crisis, Assad proved more responsible than all other involved parties.
Finally, here I have to tell you that the Alawites are a shia sect – huge supporters of hizbollah. So I very much doubt that israelis want them anywhere near them.
I’d be careful not to believe everything you read in the israeli press about their love and goodwill towards Arabs, especially the neighboring Arabs.
Anan don’t forget that Assad tried numerous times to make peace with the Israelis. Doesn’t that win him a few points in your Zionist book? Unless Greater Israel is what you’re after . . .
My sincere apologies Ms. Taxi for offending you. I am deeply sorry. My mistake.
“Now, any time I think of kissinger I just want to puke. It’s his face. Ugly man. With ugly politics. I honestly have no more to say about him than this.”
Have you read “The Trials of Henry Kissinger” by Christopher Hitchens? I think he is one of the worst American officials in history. I won’t criticize his face though. Is it appropriate to call men or woman ugly?
“what kinda “business” you think Bashar’s been having with the israelis? ” I am investigating. Don’t know yet. On another blog most of the Israelis were tilting to support Assad against the FSA, which they thought would lead to Ikhwan taking power. Maybe some Israelis think that they need to support Assad just enough to keep the FSA (with Turkish, Arab and Sunni help) from overthrowing him, but not enough to really help Assad. I am not sure. I don’t understand what Israel believes or why when it comes to Syria.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
” to counter millions of genuine peaceful protestors with sectarian and civil strife, make the streets of their cities unsafe for them to protest in, take the wind outta their collective sail – divide their countries through promoting sectarianism and by instigating, arming and importing violent bloodlusters to destabilize specific neighborhoods of countries who are out of favor, or countries that are black-listed and red-exed on the charts of the Project For The New American Century (yes Obamaless is in on it too, it’s become a corpo-bipartisan scheme).”
I fear the Gulf’s motives in all of this. Unfortunately their powerful lobbies influence policy in Europe, America and other countries.
Many Egyptians believe that America, Hillary and her aid back Ikhwan in Egypt. What do you think?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
” the problem with weakening Syria, is that you practically open the gates of hell to it’s christian and druze and kurd minorities, whom Bashar has always protected.” I fear what sectarian Sunnis will do to them after Bashar’s fall. The Allawites as a religion and culture must be protected in my opinion.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“don’t like him, call him a mass-murderer etc., but you gotta admit, his presence helps the security and safety of the underdogs/minorities.” I don’t like him at all. We don’t agree on this. I blame him for the deaths of many Iraqi Security Force and MNF-I people. And supporting terrorism against Ninevah and to a lesser degree parts of Al Anbar.
But I don’t want to see minorities get hurt. Protecting Syrian Kurds is more important to me than overthrowing Assad, for example.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“He won the last elections by 52%”
I think the elections were manipulated. But I would love to find out more about the last elections and ask others questions based on what I find out here.
“he promised and wrote up reforms that he genuinely believed in, including constitutional reforms that would allow for more democracy and the cultivation of democratic institutions”
Only after his fall seemed likely. But still, better late than never. James Baker has called for free and fair Syrian elections run by the UN where Assad’s people and Allawites can compete. This seems to be the best solution to me.
“all that the happened was that the opposition absolutely refused to negotiate with him, insisting instead on his complete and utter and immediate surrender of power.”
Agreed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Alawites are a shia sect” I want to learn a lot more about the Allawites. I have heard that they predate Islam. Look forward to learning.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“I’d be careful not to believe everything you read in the israeli press about their love and goodwill towards Arabs, especially the neighboring Arabs.”
Would like to learn more about this as well.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is much that many of you know that I don’t.
I prefer what Russia is saying at the UN – let’s negotiate – to Hilary’s “regime change”. What about you? I read Al Jazeera (Sunni) and Al Akhbar – not sure which side of the divide that is on – and I make my own judgements, don’t you? But in the case of the Guardian, it regularly comes out with “look at the atrocities the Assad regime has done” before having to back down when the facts trickle out. Why should I believe MoA or rt.com any less than I believe the NYT? The latter has a track record!
And where does the US have permanent bases – I think in 180 countries around the world – what does that prove? Do you know about the US’s military aid to various unsavoury regimes across the world? Do you know how many weapons from the US have found their way into Syria in the hands of the terrorists – supplied by US client regimes such as Saudi Arabia?
You should read MoA’s latest for an interesting article on how NYT has now decided that Al Qaeda operatives are not “terrorists” but “insurgents”. I wonder if Americans are taking notice – Al Qaeda rehabilitated!
What of Iraq’s stance on Syria anan? Perhaps you mean this:
link to articles.chicagotribune.com
Or this:
link to english.alarabiya.net
You can also check out Al Iraqiya and countless other stations for the Iraqi position vis-a-vis Syria, which is basically that states should not be fueling the conflict by providing arms, logistical support, or in any other way intervening or supporting the rebels. That’s the official government position, and it resonates with a good chunk of the population, who know fully well the kind of shit-storms that the salafi/wahhabi Al-Qae’da camp can and have wreaked on their own nation.
BTW, Maliki did allow his foreign minister to join with the Arab League in asking Assad to step down earlier this year.
Iraq is no Assad apologist. It is more that they fear the FSA.
anan, for the umpteenth time, where is your proof? You’ve been proven wrong time and again by others on this site more times than I can count, so pardon me if I’m not willing to blindly take your word for it.
“where is your proof? You’ve been proven wrong time and again by others on this site more times than I can count, so pardon me if I’m not willing to blindly take your word for it.” What are you referring to? Some of my responses are not getting posted.
Very simple: You mention in earlier posts that Iraq does not support the Assad regime (is no apologist for Assad, in your words), what is your proof? I provided evidence that Iraq has from the beginning made it clear that it is against the approach of the US and the Arab league to instigate the violence and chaos in Syria by arming and/or otherwise supporting the rebels. This has been the official position of Iraq all along, which is more in line with the Iranian and Chinese/Russian positions. Do you believe otherwise? If so, what is your evidence?
Thanks Annie. Great discussion and info dump.
Over at Race for Iran
THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN AND THE STRUGGLE FOR SYRIA
link to raceforiran.com
“For ourselves, we are more inclined to see the deficiencies in Annan’s plan less in terms of the corrupt nature of the former Secretary-General’s project than in the single-minded prioritization, by the United States and its European partners, of regime change in Damascus over any possibility for conflict resolution in Syria. As Hillary pointed out in an appearance on Al Jazeera last week to discuss Syrian developments, a negotiated political outcome is, at this point, the only way to stop Syrians from dying. But the West refuses to acknowledge that the Syrian opposition it backs so assiduously cannot kill all of the Alawis, Christians, and non-Ikhwan Sunnis who support the Assad government, or that the international community cannot deny them and their supporters a role in any meaningful and legitimate political process aimed at ending the violence. Such a process, by definition, must involve all the relevant parties in Syria—and it must involve all relevant regional and international players, including the Islamic Republic. Given the West’s refusal to face these realities, one must ask just who is really responsible for prolonging the violence in Syria?
More broadly, Mohammadi offers an extremely important observation about the shared interests and goals of the United States, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey “to contain” the Arab spring. (This was also a point that Hillary made in her Al Jazeera appearance.) These countries, Mohammadi writes,
“reached a conclusion that the best way for preventing Arab Spring developments to serve Iran’s increasing power in the region was to turn the whole situation into a conflict between Shias and Sunnis. The archetype of Shia-Sunni animosity has turned into a tool in the hands of the Western states in order to distort the entire Arab spring. By doing this, they would be able to take the energy of the regional revolutionary figures and redirect it toward Iran instead of the United States and the West which are main masterminds of decades-old sufferings of the Arab world. As a result, the political forces released by the Arab spring and Islamic revolutions in the region will spend much of their force on deepening Shia-Sunni rift in the region.”
Finally, Mohammadi offers a revealing assessment of how the situation in Syria is viewed in Tehran and how Iranian policymakers are making their calculations about it:
First,
“there is a high degree of confidence that the Syrian government will not fall in medium term. Perhaps it will be weakened or will become subject to more severe international pressures, however, the government in Syria will stay in place. As a result of this situation, firstly, the Syrian government will think of various security scenarios to take revenge of various parties that have been involved in the Syrian unrest as soon as it gets out of the current red alert security state…Its anti-American and anti-Israeli motivations will become hundreds of times stronger. This will certainly further strengthen the overall power of the anti-Israeli resistance axis in the region which will be of vital importance to Iran.”
Second,
“it is very unlikely that Russia and China will reach an agreement with the West over Syria. Both countries have already found out in Libya that the Americans have no plan to recognize or meet their national interests. On the contrary, the United States is trying to foment unrest in areas which are of vital importance to these two countries. Therefore, unlike the past experiences when the behavior of Russia and China was unpredictable and they were expected to forge an agreement with the United States at any moment, it is now clear that no deal will be reached between these two countries and the United States, even on Iran’s nuclear dossier anymore. Creation of a reliable anti-West front consisting of Russia and China will be a strategic achievement for Iran.”
Third,
“it is obvious that the Western countries have attuned the schedule of their plans on Iran’s nuclear program with the pace of political developments in Syria. If Syria gets out of the current crisis, the West’s diplomatic approach to Iran’s nuclear energy program will totally change. The Western countries’ analysis is that Iran will only change its plans for going on with the nuclear energy program when it reaches the conclusion that its security index is going down and down. The fate of Syria is among few factors which can play a key role in making Iran reach that conclusion. Also, the high probability that Israel will fall into a state of chaos after Syria weathers the current dire straits is another factor which can make the West give major political concessions to Iran.”
And so, “despite what may seem on the surface, the strategic equation of the region as a result of the ongoing developments in Syria has by no means changed to the detriment of Iran.”
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett”
thanks kathleen,
smart
Micheal Scheuer has a couple pieces up about Syria at Non intervention. Interesting conversation on the Diane Rehm show this morning about Syria
link to thedianerehmshow.org
Thanks for contributing some reality-based comments over at the Diane Rehm Show’s coverage of Syria (with Martin Indyk) this morning.
How absurd is it that the Israeli government voices concern about Syria using chemical weapons when they used white phosphorus against on the Palestinians. Why do we hear a strong indication that it is ok to use chemical weapons against ‘the others” but Clinton, Netanyahu claim concern about the use of chemical weapons against ones own population. Insane simply insane Israel’s use of chemical weapons against the Palestinianshttp://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/25/israel-white-phosphorus-use-evidence-war-crimes
Israel: White Phosphorus Use Evidence of War Crimes | Human Rights Watch
Kathleen, white phosporus is used in smoke munitions. It is used by police forces all over Asia, Africa and the Americas. Including inside the US.
Israel harmed the Palestinians in other ways.
link to amnesty.org
There it is. Divert. Human rights crimes
Israel accused of indiscriminate phosphorus use in Gaza
Human Rights Watch report claims Israel committed war crimes in its use of air-burst white phosphorus artillery shells
link to youtube.com
link to guardian.co.uk phosphorus-gaza
Zyklon B was used as a disinfectant and used for pest control. What is your point?
“…Kathleen, white phosporus is used in smoke munitions. It is used by police forces all over Asia, Africa and the Americas. Including inside the US…”
Pathetic nonsense. It is perfectly possible to use WP in ways that don’t involve committing war crimes.
It’s also possible to use it in ways that do.
I may well use gasoline to run my car and my lawn mower. It doesn’t follow that if you douse your wife with it and set her alight that you aren’t hurting her.
However, your argument is a good example of the sort of pathetic rationalization support of Israel will reduce you to.
Over the last 10 years have read many of the letters and other documents at the Project for a New American Centuries website and the middle east plan called ” A Clean Break A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” drawn up by Douglas Feith and the Wurmsers. It sure appears that the Bush and Obama administrations are following the blueprint for what the U.S. should do in the middle east based on plans, suggestions in both of these plans for the middle east which allegedly best supports U.S. and Israeli hegemony in that part of the world. Do your guest think these are the plans being followed?
link to newamericancentury.org
link to newamericancentury.org
A Clean Break
link to informationclearinghouse.info
Former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit Micheal Scheuer had this to say about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others have about the situation in Syria
.War kills people … as do lies by U.S. and Western Interventionists
By mike | Published: May 29, 201
link to non-intervention.com…
“Given the reliable ability of Israel and its U.S. fifth column to determine and control the content of U.S. policy in the Islamic world, the ersatz Syrian threat remained front and center until the Arab Spring unleashed a fatal dementia that is likely to destroy Israel and embroil the United States and its allies in a losing clash of civilizations with the Islamic world. This fatal dementia can be found in the words and — to give them the benefit of the doubt — the thoughts of Mrs. Clinton, Obama, Rice, McCain, Cameron, and Graham that assert the Arab Spring ensures the installation of secular democracy across the Arab and Islamic worlds. Although Islamic parties have won all of the elections since the Tunisian regime fell — and Egyptians are poised to choose between Islamists on the one side, and the army and Mubarak‘s assistant tyrants on the other — Mrs. Clinton still insists that secular democracy is on the march. And it is, but only in the reality-proof brains of the Secretary of State and other of our Ivy-League educated (?) political and media leaders.
There’s a new report, as yet unconfirmed, that the new Saudi Intelligence Chief Bandar has been assassinated in a bomb attack. Blame seems to be going to Syria/Iran, if it’s true:
link to worldaffairsjournal.org
link to timesofisrael.com