SYRIA

[weedguru_animal]

I am eager to find out how the news from Syria is being reported to the world, and what opinions on the matter, if any, are prevailing.

For starters...the recent Arab League Mission report, seems to have been very carefully carried through to The People, via the major media institutions. The real report is not that hard to find. And it confirms, that there are non-governmental armed mobs killing innocent people, destroying fuel depots, blowing up bridges. It suggests that some of the Arab League Mission, have NOT remained true to their oaths, and have massively exaggerated their findings to please their paymasters.

And then there is the quite easy to understand stance of Israel ( which means, in turn, the stance, of the israeli owned White House)...They seem far from eager to see Assad deposed. He creates a security buffer zone for Israel ( and therefore the US), and in his place, likely much worse could come. It appears that whilst Hilary, that proven time and time again poisonous puffer toad, and her cohorts, are merely spouting bullshit...in regards to their demand for the violence to stop. Their mission, by which I mean that of Israel, and as their puppydog, Washington, is very obviously IRAN.

And so...what are you hearing, seeing, learning, thinking, feeling on this matter???? I am eager to know.

[cutthecashflow]

Well I know the US is pulled everyone out of the embassy over there due to fears of safety or something like that. Let me dive into some more reading and I will comment on the situation. I'm currently pursuing the Israel/Iran situation, no doubt lady liberty has her hand in that situation as well, but tends to keep the public in a blind eye, at least this public. This is partly why I enjoy reading Australian and UK's newspapers online, you learn a few things not reported by the media here.

[weedguru_animal]

Well I know the US is pulled everyone out of the embassy over there due to fears of safety or something like that. Let me dive into some more reading and I will comment on the situation. I'm currently pursuing the Israel/Iran situation, no doubt lady liberty has her hand in that situation as well, but tends to keep the public in a blind eye, at least this public. This is partly why I enjoy reading Australian and UK's newspapers online, you learn a few things not reported by the media here.

mate, the US is the driving force behind, the major protagonist/agitator, of the clear path towards war with Iran. That is reported all over the world, crystal clear. Also, almost as clearly reported, from all media sources, is that England are supporting the US stance, Israel who decide US foreign policy, are obviously hugely involved. China and Russia are against military action...mainly because...and this may seem strange to the americans if they are being bombarded with ant-Iran propaganda...Iran have NOT been found to have any Nuclear Weapons Programmes. That is the bottom line. One of ONLY two facts which matter. The other are the immense natural resources Iran owns.

As for syria...its a little more complicated, although the major players remain the same.

Relations to Syria
Iran- They are strongly aligned.
'"Iran considers Syria's security its own security."- Syrian defence minister, 2006
Iran has invested in Syrian infrastructure and helped to arm them. Nothing strange or controversial about that, considering the US arms everyone who supports their agenda, and everyone opposed to those who don't support their agenda. The UK have been exporting weapons for decades...US armed the taliban, the Uk armed Saddam etc etc etctetc...a separate issue really, although the US are of course, the global leaders in arming most of the world's worst regimes, that is, as long as the regime is aligned to US interests. An attack on Syria could trigger Iran to destroy the US navy in the gulf of hormuz and disrupt the busiest oil shipping channel in the world. No matter how formidable the US navy is, and it appears incredibly powerful, most of their advantage in firepower would be lost in such a confrontation, due to the geography of the region. Iran has a huge amount of decent weapons, especially supersonic anti-warship missiles, courtesy of Russia mainly, but perhaps also China.

The two countries (syria and Iran) have common enemies in Israel and the US. No doubt that some form of aid has been given, or increased since the uprising began last year.
'The original "axis of evil" list, pronounced by US President George W Bush in 2002, comprised Iraq, Iran and North Korea....US Undersecretary of State John Bolton has said that Syria, Libya and Cuba are also candidates.' (BBC, 2003). Cuba and North Korea are in there just to make up the numbers, Iraq and Libya have already been crunched, which leaves Iran and Syria as the main candidates for US military intervention. Considering the too large to ignore amount of reports linking the US to the rebels in Libya, Israel and the US to the rebel groups in Iran and likely the british helping the same people out in both countries, its hardly a crazy conspiracy theory to suggest that the rebels in Syria are armed and funded by the same culprits.

Israel-
Hard to gauge their agenda. But they are hardly friends. 4 major wars in the 20th century. Syria have long supported lebanese and palestinian groups who are certain enemies of Israel, for obvious reasons which anyone who isn't enthusiastic about having their land stolen, their people imprisoned and killed, will understand fairly quickly. Its worth peeking at the Golan heights story...and the attacks made on syrian land by the IDF. However...there seems some real cause for concern in the israeli camp..for they may not have control over who comes into power if Assad is toppled. An uneasy and long standing mutual hatred, but little direct military conflict is preferable to all out war. So their position is interesting. If the country ends up in the hands of far less moderate figures than Assad and his people, Israel will be in trouble. Hardly a war they couldn't win, but one they won't want.

US-
Al of their foreign policy seems directed, even written, by AIPAC, the military-industrial complex, and to a lesser extent, by the major media institutions and major pharmaceutical companies. So I assume the major players of those White House Directors/CEOs will have to balance on one hand how much $ can be made, and on the other, how many israelis could be drawn into the slaughter. If the US invades, Israel will surely be attacked in turn, by not just Syria, but also perhaps Hizbollah, other lebanese and palestinian groups aligned with Damascus. Also to consider will be the reaction of Iran. An attack on Syria, such as the attack on Libya, would prove a massive incentive for Iran to bulk up their defences with urgency, and if they are developing nuclear weapons, that programme will be greatly accelerated. Which in turn will lead to a pre-emptive strike by ISrael, and US/England behind them. What could be gained by the US by invading Syria??? I am unsure...please don't get carried away with this by now insulting Global Policeman rant, the US has no form for intervening militarily for anything but their own gain.

Russia-
Historically they have been friends. Russia's ONLY mediteranean naval base is situated in Tartus, Syria. Some of the russian fleet are nuclear armed, and work has been underway since 2008 for the syrian port homing the russians, to upgrade in order to service these warships. Removing that would allow US and Israel to have closer to free reign over the region. Syria is the 7th most lucrative military customer of Russia.
Clearly, Russia are against losing their only foothold in the region. As well as potentially losing their 7th highest spending military customer. The financial ties are not solely of a military nature. Russia has invested huge in the country, in the energy, tourism and steel industries. They have oil, not much, but it makes up a large part of their economy. More important is the location of Syria, which offers transit routes and the potential of regional security in a volatile area.

China-
By far Syria's major importer. They are also heavily involved, like the russians, in oil production and exploration. They have invested in the Assad Syria and it would be totally against their business instincts to support the destruction of their investment.

UK-
Are they even worth mentioning these days other than as a small platoon of the US army??? Strong ties with Israel, on the whole directed militarily by the US, often fighting against the same people we have armed in the past. Stiff upper lip. lots of talk of Liberty and Democracy and Senseless Killing...but fuck all integrity, on the global map, for a very long time now. Have no doubt though that their special forces number some of the most highly trained in the world, so they are already likely in Syria, helping to agitate trouble. As they were in Libya, long before we invaded and bombed the fuck out of Gaddafi and his people.

Those are the major players. As far as I can tell. As for the extreme propaganda routine, even the Arab Leagues Mission report mentioned members of its own team, failing to meet their oaths, intentionally exaggerating information, basically...not telling the truth and trying to make the Assad government look worse than it is. Have a peek...
http://globalresearch.ca/Report_of_Arab ... ission.pdf
It seems to suggest that the violence was lessening, and that most of the arab league's demands were being met, and that Assad's 'regime' were facing an armed insurrection. How much of that has been publicized in the main western media institutions??? Next to fuck-all. Instead we are blitzed daily with pictures of bloodied corpses, desperate rebels clinging on for dear life under bombardment from the heinous evil tyrant Assad and his vicious arab version of the Gestapo...

Well, a little more than I had planned on writing, but once I began, I had to continue my overview to its conclusion. And yet still, so much is missing...

[cutthecashflow]

Thanks animal. It's not that I'm blind to these issues, it's just that I am preoccupied most of the week reading other mandated things not related to politics and once done I am left with little energy to read up on others. I enjoyed the post and its given me a better sense of what is going on. Please keep them coming as this is one place I do dedicate extra time to for reading.

[weedguru_animal]

Cheers for reading and the encouragement, CHris. I have been planning a large news report to send out via WG, and will try to find some time for it soonish. I am interested, in how my own findinds above, correlate with the main US media institutions output...so please feel free, obliged even, to inform me on such matters.

[weedguru_animal]

Sending Kofi Annan in now...reminds me of President Logan in 24 (banki moon), accepting he is fucked and seeking out a lion hearted and powerfully decent David Palmer (Kofi).

[weedguru_animal]

This report is brilliant...

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 65992.html

and reading Hilary's words...'.... And the pressure will build on countries like Russia and China because world opinion is not going to stand idly by."
made me chuckle.

The friends of Syria? Everyone was invited/attended other than the friends of Syria...which seems, at very best...odd.

One of the best pieces of journalism I have read for far too long.

As officials from more than 70 countries gather to explore options for peace in Syria, Al Jazeera's senior political analyst offers his scrutiny of the meeting.

What do you make of the 'Friends of Syria' meeting in Tunisia?

Despite the attendance of so many countries and international organisations, the "Friends of Syria" meeting rang hollow, in light of the disagreement among the "friends" and the absence of the doubters - notably Russia and China.

Since Moscow and Beijing vetoed the UN Security Council draft resolution regarding leadership transition in Syria, several Western and Arab countries have been scrambling to find ways to end the violence and bring about change in Syria, to no avail.

Divisions among Syria's neighbours - Turkey, for example, was an enthusiastic summit attendee, while Iran vehemently opposed the meeting - and between Arab League members - Saudi Arabia left the meeting abruptly over the "lack of resolve", while Lebanon didn't even attend - as well as disagreement among the world superpowers over the means to end the violence and over the political endgame in Syria, have all made it ever more difficult to reach an international roadmap for change in Syria.

That's why the more effective and actionable results of the Tunisia gathering are more likely to come out of the hallway discussions and backroom deals than the official meeting and its final statement.

So, while the official statement condemns the regime's excessive use of force and demands the withdrawal of heavy military equipment from urban areas in order to reach a peaceful transition of power, a hardcore "coalition of the willing" seems adamant on escalating the pressure and militarising the revolution through somewhat clandestine means.

To that end, the meeting made symbolic - and, indeed, important - political gestures towards the Syrian opposition by recognising the Syrian National Council as "a legitimate representative" of the Syrian people (notably not the sole representative, which has disappointed the SNC). However, it will be the attempts by certain countries to arm the opposition that will prove a game changer.

This is most obvious in the statement made to press by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the day before the meeting, which alluded to the arming of the opposition, most probably through a third party:

"There will be increasingly capable opposition forces. They will - from somewhere, somehow - find the means to defend themselves as well as to begin offensive measures. And the pressure will build on countries like Russia and China because world opinion is not going to stand idly by."

The Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal echoed Clinton, stating that arming the Syrian opposition is "an excellent idea". But other international and Arab leaders oppose the further militarisation of the opposition. For example, the host of the meeting, Tunisia's President Moncif Al Marzouki, opposes any military intervention and instead supports a peaceful political transition.

It follows that the inaction resulting from these divisions will leave a dangerous void that will only be filled with more of the same violence, and its increasing escalation.

What do you make of the absence of Russia and China?

Syria is the double victim of violent dictatorship and the machinations of cynical superpowers. It has evolved into a major case of West-East contention, following NATO's capacious intervention in Libya.

Russia and China might be criticised as being cold, calculating and indifferent to Syrian suffering, but that does not mean that the US and EU have been entirely virtuous either.

As any student of international affairs would tell you, interests, not human rights, are the centre of superpower calculation - Eastern or Western. And in light of NATO's specious interpretation of UN Security Council resolution 1973 in Libya, Beijing and Moscow are doubtful of Western intentions and oppose military intervention and the further arming of the Syrian opposition.

Strategically speaking, Syria is only the symptom of a greater crisis in relations among the world superpowers. Moscow and Beijing share a number of strategic preoccupations that Syria epitomises.

Among other factors, they are suspicious of the West's intervention in sovereign states under the guise of the "Right to Protect", and in the process transforming the post-World War II system, according to their own vision and interests.

Intervention in Syria would enhance the geopolitical influence of Western powers notably in the greater Middle East region - at the expense of the others, which is not acceptable either to rising China or the populist Russian leadership.

The West's fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its diplomatic failure and double-standard in Israel/Palestine have provided its detractors with more political ammunition to legitimately reject military intervention in Syria.

Second, Beijing and Moscow are suspicious of the rise of political Islamist alternatives to autocratic regimes in the greater Middle East following the Arab revolutions, and are wary of their potential influence on Muslims in Asia - notably among minorities in Russia and China.


What does the future hold for Syria?

Needless to say, Syria is no Libya; it is far more complex. Any attempt at military intervention could lead to the country's breakup, rife with sectarian and political violence, which may spill over to the surrounding countries and the rest of the region.

On the other hand, diplomatic attempts to mend fences between the bitter, horrified majority among the populace and the sadistic minority at the helm are too timid, too late.

If Assad had listened to the voice of reason and the agony of his people from the outset, perhaps there would have been a chance for reform and reconciliation.

The Syrian regime has now lost all legitimacy and there is no more room for reconciliation under Assad's leadership. It's just too late for that.

Already more than a quarter of the population is either on the streets or directly implicated by the mass demonstrations, and is in direct confrontation with the forces of the regime. With more than 7,000 killed - and many more injured and displaced - the window of opportunity for reconciliation has long since closed.

Moreover, the expected collapse of Syria's currency and the regime's inability to pay salaries to its soldiers and bureaucrats will, for all practical purpose, destroy whatever technical legitimacy it commands in the country - and perhaps lead to its implosion from within.

In the meantime, in the absence of Arab consensus and with a lack of serious international diplomatic pressure, arming the opposition renders the escalation towards civil war all but imminent - short of an implosion within the regime's inner circles.

It's a zero sum game that will probably, at the end of the day, leave everyone on the losing side.

[weedguru_animal]

( something I wrote a few weeks back, and felt it was useful for the thread...)

It seems like a different life when I last produced a lengthy fox eye view of global affairs from my war desk here in my swine-proof den. Yes there has been a steady trickle of snippets, but nothing of solid substance, mere flashes in the pan. Its time to change the tune, seek out my favourite beats and roar to the heavens and depths of hell 'DEUTSCHLAND, DEUTSCHLAND UBER ALLES, UBER ALLES IN DER WELT!'...Such passionate reportage may well prove beyond me, given my presently joyful state of involvement with a fiery temptress whose embrace over these last few months has led to an immense scorch and burn of my cynicism, and sent my bliss levels sky high. Still...I will try.

Lets begin with a visit to the realm of my old room mate from university, the much maligned Bashar al-Assad. With widespread reports of government engineered atrocities growing by the week, the same brutes in suits denouncing my dear Bashar as a genocidal maniac, and Russia and the Chinaman remaining firm in the stance of 'No thankyou', who knows what to believe???? Before venturing a capable mind towards such a conundrum, first we need an idea of the major players in this macabre theatre of doom...

Since my Relations To Syria piece in February, Kofi, the black(er) Gandhi, still desperately trying to assuage his own shame of his son's creative commercial efforts, has stuck his oar in and attempted a ceasefire...to no avail. Then came the massacres. Then came the tit-for-tat US v Russia exchange of who is arming who. I prefer the Russians take on such matters, for they stray less often into 'IM RIGHTEOUS AND THE MORAL FORCE OF THE WORLD' than landshark heathens like Hilary Clinton and her mob of furious necromancers.

One point about the massacre(s)...Headlines such as 'scores of women and children found with throats cut' do NOT immediately lead me to believe that such an event has occurred. It leads me directly to suspecting foulness of reportage. Contemporary Western propaganda. Which makes sense...for if much of the major western world does nothing, when out governments lie to us about Afghanistan, lie to us about Iraq, proceed to invade, destroy and rape those countries, in our name, with our money, then why the hell would they not play the same cards again??? The routine WORKS...but surely a half lively mind, when faced with such barbaric headlines will respond, quizzically, with something along the lines of...If so many women and children were slaughtered so brutally, where were all the men??? Did they all go into hiding, leaving their wives, mothers and infants vulnerable and exposed??? Something seems amiss...

After dragging myself through so many contrasting reports, the only thing I can be sure of is that I am sure of nothing...Other than...looking at the carnage outpouring in Libya, the very clear loss to the Taliban in Afghanistan and the horrendous state of Iraq, its fair to assume that Western-led liberations equate to the death of thousands and the destruction of societies. Suffice to say, English and US spearheaded attempts to 'spread democracy', in recent history, suggest far more sinister aims and results forged and well planned in the catacombs of our very own imperial ministries..

[omnific.dc]

Can't believe that if you kill someone or some people you would go to heaven..suicide terrorists..so sad.