Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Amish Rake Fighter

Everything you hear about Syria is a lie.

95 posts in this topic

Ummm... the only problem here is that noone actually wants to invade Syria. There's also no motive to overthrow Assad and let a group of potential islamic militants rule the country.

You can make the argument that there is a double standard here as Ghaddafi was removed, and he just coincidentally happened to be the tyrant in an oil rich country. However, that's entirely separate from the depection your going for here.

Also, the articles you supplied don't actually provide any proof of the claim your making.

May 29, 2012 "Information Clearing House" -- - The UN according to Associated Press, has stated that, "most of the 108 victims of a massacre in [Houla] Syria last week were shot at close range, some of them women, children and entire families gunned down in their own homes." The UN has also stated that militants, not Syrian soldiers, were responsible for the massacre. The report cites "witness accounts" claiming the militants were "pro-government thugs known as shabiha," while the Syrian government has claimed the militants were foreign-backed armed terrorists.

This stands in stark contrast to the original narrative the US, UK, France and other NATO members have used to accuse the Syrian government for the atrocities, and even as the basis to expel Syrian diplomats. As stated by UK Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt, (emphasis added) "We are appalled at what appears to be credible reports that the Syrian regime has been responsible for the deaths of 92 civilians in Houla, including 32 children. The UN Head of Mission has been able to confirm the numbers and also that artillery tank shells have been used. If this is the case then it's an act of pure, naked savagery and we condemn it in the most strongest possible terms."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If "no-one actually wants to invade Syria," why does it seem ever more likely that Syria will be invaded?

As an aside it was, for a long time, NDP policy to get out of NATO. It would seem that the elimination of that policy was part of the making the NDP ready for prime time. I have personally never seen the value in the alliance. It was an anti cold-war alliance. What is its relevance today? The narrative that NATO is about valourous nations bravely making the sacrifices other countries aren't willing to make so the whole world can be made a safer place is bunk. It's a platform for projecting US and/or "western" interests, militarily. Canada should have nothing to do with that.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If "no-one actually wants to invade Syria," why does it seem ever more likely that Syria will be invaded?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If "no-one actually wants to invade Syria," why does it seem ever more likely that Syria will be invaded?

As an aside it was, for a long time, NDP policy to get out of NATO. It would seem that the elimination of that policy was part of the making the NDP ready for prime time. I have personally never seen the value in the alliance. It was an anti cold-war alliance. What is its relevance today? The narrative that NATO is about valourous nations bravely making the sacrifices other countries aren't willing to make so the whole world can be made a safer place is bunk. It's a platform for projecting US and/or "western" interests, militarily. Canada should have nothing to do with that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget about Libya.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem like that at all. People with various agendas are reading that into the events. Who exactly has called for an invasion of Syria? People have called for Russia to support Assad stepping down and callign an election. That's the closest thing.

With the negative public reaction to the Libyan semi-invasion, we won't even see that in Syria. This is the downside of non-interventionism. You don't intervene and just watch as people tear themselves apart.

Please show one example of someone actually calling for a military intervention. It's been 1 year and 3 months since the violence started.

What's actually going on is pretty simple and obvious. Assad is a tyrant. The opposition has now taken arms against him. The opposition aren't exactly angels themselves. The best way to stop this would be to have Assad introduce democratic reforms and ultimately look towards stepping down.

This isn't a plot by the media, Israel, the NWO, etc... people are actually dying, and there is plenty of proof to show that Assad is using military force against civilian targets to surpress opposition against him.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If everything you hear about Syria is a lie, then how do you know the truth? Are you in Syria? Looks like you've entrusted a source, this source doesn't really give much information, they mainly criticize others, and bring in their own subjective opinion. If they're wrong, are you going to decry them as an information source? Somehow, I doubt it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on Professor, use your brain, let's see what you've got. I just checked your profile, I know you're reading this.

Come on, now. If we wait too long, we'll just get stuck with the guy that only knows how to quote Wikipedia and the BBC and he's a real dumbass.

Are you scared ?

Anyway, and this goes out to everybody reading this, if you know anybody from Syria (we've got a huge Syrian community in Canada), ask them about what's going on in their country. Chances are they know a lot more than the garbage coming out of our 24 hour cable TV channels.

The US wants to destroy Syria and turn them into a client state just like they did to Iraq and Libya and the Syrian people don't want NATO anywhere near them.

And Iran's next, they haven't attacked another sovereign nation in centuries but somehow they're the evil empire.

Meanwhile Israel actually has nuclear weapons but, unlike Iran, they refuse to sign on to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it odd that the mainstream media just conveniently failed to mention the fact that Gaddafi was planning on replacing the Dollar with the Gold Dinar as the only currency that they would trade their oil with. Seems like a very important fact that was left out of the entire picture.

Also if you don't know about the US using "Economic Hitmen" to control and enslave countries in massive debts (like they do to us individuals), you should listen to John Perkins explain his role as one.

He goes onto explain how if he failed his role, there was always a Plan B to send in what he calls "Jackals" that were CIA agents that specialized in creating a fake dissent amoungst the public which led to staged and planned coups or assassinations of their leaders.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24207

Rebels, Al-Qaeda, MI6, CIA

Here’s a Guardian article from 2002. This information has been available for ten years, but the media didn’t think it was newsworthy:

British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.

The latest claims of MI6 involvement with Libya's fearsome Islamic Fighting Group, which is connected to one of bin Laden's trusted lieutenants, will be embarrassing to the Government, which described similar claims by renegade MI5 officer David Shayler as 'pure fantasy'.

The allegations have emerged in the book
Forbidden Truth
, published in America by two French intelligence experts who reveal that the first Interpol arrest warrant for bin Laden was issued by Libya in March 1998.

According to journalist Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard, an adviser to French President Jacques Chirac, British and US intelligence agencies buried the fact that the arrest warrant had come from Libya and played down the threat. Five months after the warrant was issued, al-Qaeda killed more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The arrest warrant was issued in connection with the murder in March 1994 of two German anti-terrorism agents, Silvan and Vera Becker, who were in charge of missions in Africa. According to the book, the resistance of Western intelligence agencies to the Libyan concerns can be explained by MI6's involvement with the al-Qaeda coup plot. (Martin Bright,
, Guardian, November 10, 2002)

While Gaddafi became the laughing stock of the media when he accused Al-Qaeda of backing the rebellion, on March 28, the Commander of NATO’s European forces confirmed half-heartedly, and without being ridiculed, that the network was manipulating the insurgents:

Since the beginning of the insurrection in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi accused Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. He thus claimed several times that the terrorist network manipulated the insurgents. This Tuesday, James Stavridis, the commander of NATO’s forces in Europe, has partly confirmed these claims.

Indeed, during an audit before the U.S. Senate, he explained that some intelligence mentioned signs of an Al-Qaeda, or even of a Lebanese Hezbollah presence among the Libyan opposition. He nevertheless tempered this by underlining that he did not have “enough details” to say whether this presence was “significant or not”
. (
, (
Libya
: NATO admits the opposition would be infiltrated by Al-Qaeda
) TF1,March 29, 2011)

Therefore, even if Westerners admit the presence of Al-Qaeda among the rebels, they still choose to intervene in their favour.

To add to this Kafkaesque turn of events, the Libyan National Transition Council (LNTC), representing the Libyan opposition and up to now recognized by France and Qatar [1], has appointed a longstanding CIA collaborator to lead its operations:

The Libyan National Council, the Benghazi-based group that speaks for the rebel forces fighting the Gaddafi regime, has appointed a long-time CIA collaborator to head its military operations.
The selection of Khalifa Hifter, a former colonel in the Libyan army, was reported by
McClatchy Newspapers
Thursday […] (Patrick Martin,
, World Socialist Web Site, March 28, 2011)

The next day we learned during a press conference who the LNTC spokespersons were: Mahmoud Shammam, former Foreign Policy journalist, “living between Washington and Doha”, and Guma El-Gamaty, “an activist living in London”. (Eric Albert, Les premiers pas politiques hésitants des rebelles libyens, (The Libyan Rebels’ first hesitant political steps), La Tribune, March 29, 2011.)

The Libyan rebels’ representatives are thus Libyans living in the U.S. and the U.K., and their chief of operations is a CIA collaborator. The Libyan rebellion is starting to take on the appearance of a Western regime change.

Two days after the release of the McClatchy article and after the beginning of the intervention, the New York Times “revealed” that the CIA had been on Libyan soil for several weeks. As for the MI6 and the British Special Forces, agents were captured early in March by the rebels who had mistaken them for enemy spies. British intelligence was allegedly on the ground to establish connections with the rebellion, which they were apparently not aware of.

Another important fact has been largely ignored by the media: Benghazi is a chosen hideout for jihadists, according to a 2007 study from the United States Military Academy at West Point:

The most striking finding which emerges from the West Point study is that the corridor which goes from Benghazi to Tobruk, passing through the city of Darnah…
represents one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists to be found anywhere in the world, and by some measures can be regarded as the leading source of suicide bombers anywhere on the planet.
(Dr. Webster G. Tarpley,
, Global Research, March 28, 2011)

All this information reveals a number of facts crucial to the understanding of this conflict, and is available for whomever bothers to do a bit of research. Yet, it seems like the role of the mainstream press is not to deliver facts, but rather propaganda.

Whether this bias is deliberate or not, the result is in any case the same: they are not doing their job correctly. Once again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel can't even be compared to Syria. Israel has done nothing wrong, has to deal with crazies all around them and maintains a positive relationship with the US and President Obama. Syria is run by liars and thugs. How dare you compare the two, HOW dare you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31320

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is calling for an R2P humanitarian military intervention in Syria to curb the atrocities allegedly ordered by the government of president Bashar Al Assad. In a twisted logic, Clinton recognizes that while "opposition forces" are integrated by Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, the government rather than the terrorists is held responsible, without a shred of evidence, for the ongoing massacre of civilians.

Amply documented, these sectarian killings and atrocities are being committed by foreign mercenaries and militia which are armed and supported by the Western military alliance.

The killings are carried out quite deliberately as part of a diabolical covert operation. The enemy is then blamed for the resulting atrocities. The objective is to justify a military agenda on humanitarian grounds.

In US military jargon, it's called a "massive casualty producing event", the historical origins of which go back to "Operation Northwoods", an infamous 1962 Pentagon Plan, consisting in killing civilians in the Miami Cuban community, with a view to justifying a war on Cuba. (See Michel Chossudovsky, SYRIA: Killing Innocent Civilians as part of a US Covert Op. Mobilizing Public Support for a R2P War against Syria, Global Research, May 30, 2012)

"Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible
assassination of Cuban émigrés
, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship,
and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to
trick the American public and the international community
into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro." (
emphasis added. This Secret Pentagon document was declassified and can be readily consulted,
, See also
, 30 April 2001)

In the logic of Operation Northwoods, the killings in Syria are carried out to "create a helpful wave of indignation", to drum up public opinion in favor of an R2P US-NATO operation against Syria. "The international community cannot sit idly by, and we won’t”, said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

What lies behind this outburst of humanitarian concern by "the international community". Is America coming to the rescue of the Syrian people? What is the real reason for America's war on Syria?

This question is addressed in a lead article by James P. Rubin, a Bloomberg executive editor and former State department official under the Clinton administration. The article appears in this month's Foreign Policy Magazine under the clear-cut title: "The Real Reason to Intervene in Syria"

In an unusual twist, "the answer to the question", namely "the real reason" is provided in the article's subtitle: "Cutting Iran's link to the Mediterranean Sea is a strategic prize worth the risk.".

The subtitle should dispel --in the eyes of the reader-- the illusion that US foreign policy has an underlying "humanitarian mandate". Pentagon and US State department documents as well as independent reports confirm that military action against Syria has been contemplated by Washington and Tel Aviv for more than 20 years.

Targeting Iran, "Protecting Israel"

According to James P. Rubin, the war plans directed against Syria are intimately related to those pertaining to Iran. They are part of the same US-Israeli military agenda which consists in weakening Iran with a view to "protecting Israel". The latter objective is to be carried out through a pre-emptive attack against Iran: "We're not done with the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran" says James P. Rubin.

According to Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies ("a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism"), the humaniitarian concern is not the primary objective but rather as "a means to an end": "If the Arab League is unmoved by the massacres of Syrian women and children (their angry eyes fixed as ever on Israel), and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation doesn’t give a fig about Muslims slaughtering Muslims, why should we Americans expend an ounce of energy? ...[The answer] Because Syria, under the Assad dictatorship, is Iran’s most important ally and asset. And Iran is the single most important strategic threat facing the U.S. — hands down." (See National Review, May 30, 2012)

The military roadmap to Tehran goes through Damascus. The unspoken objective of the US-NATO-Israeli sponsored insurgency in Syria is to destabilize Syria as a Nation State and undermine Iran's influence in the region (including its support of the Palestinian Liberation movement and Hezbollah). The underlying objective is also to eliminate all forms of resistance to the Zionist State:

"That is where Syria comes in, says James P, Rubin. It is the strategic relationship between
the Islamic Republic and the Assad regime that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security
. Over the three decades of hostility between Iran and Israel, a direct military confrontation has never occurred -- but through Hezbollah, which is sustained and trained by Iran via Syria, the Islamic Republic has proven able to threaten Israeli security interests.

The collapse of the Assad regime would sunder this dangerous alliance
. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, arguably the most important Israeli decision-maker on this question, recently told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that the Assad regime's fall "will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world ... and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza." (
, June 2, 2012, emphasis added)

US-Israeli War Plans directed against Syria

Rubin candidly outlines the contours of US military intervention in Syria, which is to be implemented in close liaison with Israel. A diplomatic solution will not work, nor will economic sanctions: "only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator's stance" says Rubin:

"U.S. President Barack Obama's administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria similar to the campaign in Libya, for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians, the longtime patron of the Assad regime, are staunchly opposed." (Ibid)

Washington's first step, according to James P. Rubin, should be to work with "its allies", the Arab sheikdoms --Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey-- "to organize, train, and arm Syrian rebel forces."

This "first step" has already been launched. It was implemented at the very outset of the insurgency in March 2012. The US and its allies have been actively supporting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) terrorists for over a year. The organization and training consisted in the deployment of Salafist and Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, alongside the incursion of French, British, Qatari and Turkish special forces inside Syria. US-NATO sponsored mercenaries are recruted and trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Sidetracking the UN

Rubin's proposed "second step" is "to secure international support for a coalition air operation." outside the mandate of the United Nations. "Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the U.N. Security Council" says Rubin. The air operation contemplated by Rubin is an all out war scenario, similar to the NATO air raids conducted in Libya.

Rubin is not expressing a personal opinion on the role of the UN. The option of "sidetracking" the UN Security Council has already been endorsed by Washington. The violaiton of international law does not seem to be an issue. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice confirmed in late May, in no uncertain terms, that "the worst and most probable scenario" in Syria might be the option of "acting outside of the UN Security Council's authority".

"In the absence of either of those two scenarios,
there seems to me to be only one other alternative, and that is indeed the worst case, which seems unfortunately at the present to be the most probable.
And that is that the violence escalates, the conflict spreads and intensifies, it reaches a higher degree of severity...
The Council's unity is exploded, the Annan plan is dead and members of this Council and members of the international community are left with the option only of having to consider whether they're prepared to take actions outside of the Annan plan and the authority of this Council."
http://en.rian.ru/world/20120531/173762886.html' rel="external nofollow">
, May 31, 2012

Rubin also points to "the reluctance of some European states" (without mentioning the countries) to participate in an air operation against Syria: "this [military] operation will have to be a unique combination of Western and Middle East countries. Given Syria's extreme isolation within the Arab League, it should be possible to gain strong support from most Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. U.S. leadership is indispensable, since most of the key countries will follow only if Washington leads."

The article calls for continued arming of the Syrian Free Army (FSA) as well carrying out air raids directed against Syria. No ground operations are to be envisaged. The air campaign would be used --as in the case of Libya-- to support the FSA foot soldiers integrated by mercenaries and Al Qaeda affiliated brigades:

"Whether an air operation should just create a no-fly zone that grounds the regimes' aircraft and helicopters or actually conduct air to ground attacks on Syrian tanks and artillery should be the subject of immediate military planning. ...

The larger point is that as long as Washington stays firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, à la Kosovo and Libya, the cost to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will likely regard the United States as more friend than enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes."
(Rubin, op cit)

While the participation of Israel in military operations is not mentioned, the thrust of Rubin's article points to active cooperation between Washington and Tel Aviv in military and intelligence affairs, including the conduct of covert operations in support of the opposition rebels. This coordination would also be carried out in the context of the bilateral military-intelligence cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey.

"Coming to the rescue of the Syrian people" under a fake "humanitarian" R2P mandate is intended to destabilize Syria, weaken Iran and enable Israel to exert greater political control and influence over neighboring Arab states including Lebanon and Syria.

A war on Syria is also a war on Palestine. It would weaken the resistance movement in the occupied territories. It would reinforce the Netanyahu government's ambitions to create a "Greater Israel", initially, through the outright annexation of the Palestinian territories:

"With the Islamic Republic deprived of its gateway to the Arab world, the Israelis' rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on its nuclear facilities would diminish.
A new Syrian regime might eventually even resume the frozen peace talks regarding the Golan Heights.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor,
since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance, and missiles. All these strategic benefits combined with the moral purpose of saving tens of thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime ... make intervention in Syria a calculated risk, but still a risk worth taking." (Rubin, op cit)

War Crimes in the name of human rights: What we really need is "Regime Change" in the United States of America.... and Israel.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Syria is just the next piece on the board to be taken out, in order to get to their main target, Iran.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noone is going to invade Iran. It would be like the Iraq war on steroids.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone with a brain in every country agrees that it would be a complete disaster, AND that there is no way to destroy Iran's nuclear program without both an invasion, and an occupation. Yet you have right-wing leaders in Iran screaming, "They're coming to get us!" and right-wing leaders in Israel and the US both screaming "They're coming to get us!" It seems at least possible that there will be war, foolish though it would be, if somebody does not back down. I think it will have to be Netanyahu who backs down because I hope, at this point, the rest of the world, and in particular the United States - the good will of which Israel is entirely dependent - will signal to him that he will receive no support if he decides to attack Iran unilaterally.

The US could normalize relations with Iran and diffuse the situation completely, if they wanted to. A good place to start would be to stop funding terrorists in Iran to assassinate scientists and other civilian targets...issue a formal apology for the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government in the 50s, and for propping up the Shah regime during its existence...apologize for funding Saddam Hussein's war against Iran...denounce Israel for not signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and for owning nuclear weapons, and tell Israel that it will receive zero military aid until it makes good faith attempts to normalize relations with Iran.

These are all things that should happen ANYWAY.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for your recommendations on what the US should do, the US should do none of those things. Iran shouldn't be invaded but it's still a violent fascist state that denies all political freedomes and executes its own citizens en masse. They shouldn't be rewarded for their actions or appeased in any way. The continued policy of assassination of nuclear scientists, technological attacks, and political and economic isolation is the best way for the US to proceed. The US will never be friends with the current Iranian regime.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since everyone is saying ask someone from Syria what is really going on - I did, having studied with a couple of Syrians back in uni days. They said there would be absolutely no reason for the government to have massacres and run around killing civilians when the international spotlight is on them and everyone and their grandma is taping everything on their phone and posting it to youtube. As of now, there are so many small groups vying for power, it is hard to tell who is who, where they are, what they really want. What is clear, is that they are setting up the govt to escalate the tense relationship with the West, so that they will intervene and take down the current power. Then one of the smaller groups will come to light.

So there you go, straight from the horse's mouth.

America has learned nothing though, Egypt and Lybia are both a disaster on the brink of Sharia law. So they must either vote for the awful backwards muslim brotherhood or take a chance on people who are tied to old regimes. Obviously people are torn. Although I'd say anything is better than Sharia law. The Russians don't have the best track record, but don't eff with them for pete's sakes. Hilary is having a cow because they just sent some choppers over there and she better sit her arse down because Putin is not one to be intimidated. All those failed years in Afghanistan and the Russians couldn't change a damn thing. So America and Canada decide they are going to give it a go. Same result. We have enough problems in our own back yard instead of policing the world, rather poorly too I might add.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.