But I assume it's more likely for the whole thing to kick off via Turkey. So perhaps Erdogan's son would fit the bill better. I can imagine such a scenario:
-Kurds assasinate Erdogan's son
-Turkey declares war/invades Syria
-Russia defends Syria
-All other powers pile in on their respective sides (or of course more likely do fuck all and leave Turkey up shit creek with some very angry Russians)
Re: Syria
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:17 am
by UGagain
Probably the best article I've read on Syria from a mainstream journalist.
Peter Oborne speaks to residents of government-held areas about their fighting for ‘civilisation’ and latest drive to root out ‘terrorism’ in Syria
Lizard wrote:I was in Syria in 2009, and some people I spoke with were clearly discontented with the regime, especially in Damascus (although of course they couldn't be too blatant about it). No one spoke of armed insurrection but who would when talking to a foreign stranger. A couple I stayed with in Damascus, after a few drinks, hinted at a brother involved in the opposition.
The general point is right, though. There would be very few countries in which the population is inherently heavily enough armed to start the sort of thing we see in Syria. Someone has shipped arms in.
I'm discontented with the Key regime. Can NATO send 80,000 jihadis with heavy weapons from Libya, Croatia, the USA,the UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Jordan, Xinjiang etc etc etc to destroy New Zealand please?
In the interests of democracy of course.
Re: Syria
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:29 am
by OptimisticJock
Just like old times. This feels....... comfortable.
Re: Syria
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 7:55 pm
by UGagain
A reasonable summation of the history of Anglo-US bastardry in Syria by ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.
Zhivago wrote:The conflict arose because hostile states decided that they wouldn't accept Assad's rejection of a lucrative energy pipeline through Syria. Thus they attempted a coup, for much the same reasons the US orchestrated the 1949 coup.
as i said here
Re: Syria
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 9:35 pm
by jared_7
UGagain wrote:A reasonable summation of the history of Anglo-US bastardry in Syria by ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.
Assad sweeps to victory, by the looks of it, though the US refused to accept such an outcome even before it became one. Meanwhile, the US-backed rebels have vowed to continue fighting for regime change, and Turkey has continued bombing inside Syrian borders. I suspect this proxy war is a long way from over...
Re: Syria
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:02 am
by Sandydragon
Elections were only held in regime held areas. So those who generally oppose Assad couldn't vote anyway.
AS much as this is dressed up by some as outsiders alone interfering, this is a genuine civil war, brought about in a huge part by Assad himself. Any long term peace deal that finds him remaining in post as President for more than an interim period won't work, even if Putin decided to add his weight to the outcome.
Re: Syria
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:03 am
by Sandydragon
UGagain wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:
Theres an interesting article on Bellingcat .
Bellingcat: the Dead Cat Factory
Need a Dead Cat?
Call Bellingcat.
Dead Cats thrown straight on your table.
How is Bellingcat any different to what you do? Except they tend to be more evidence based and get a more discerning audience. Keep on ignoring those inconvenient truths.
Re: Syria
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 12:42 pm
by rowan
Sandydragon wrote:Elections were only held in regime held areas. So those who generally oppose Assad couldn't vote anyway.
AS much as this is dressed up by some as outsiders alone interfering, this is a genuine civil war, brought about in a huge part by Assad himself. Any long term peace deal that finds him remaining in post as President for more than an interim period won't work, even if Putin decided to add his weight to the outcome.
The war began when NATO and its allies (notably Saudi and Israel) began arming and training rebels, many of whom entered quite freely from the northern border. A large number of them were Iraqi Sunnis disenfranchised by the Bush & Blair invasion. Not surprisingly, therefore, some turned directly to committing acts of terrorism, slaughtering Alawite families in cold blood and so on. The chemical weapons attack in Damascus, which almost triggered another US bombing campaign, has since been traced back to the rebels (the source of those weapons lying north of the border).
The involvement of NATO members in the conflict was uninvited and highly dubious. We know at least one of them was working with the rebels/terrorists to steal oil, and bombing so-called ISID's enemies in the process. The Russians, however, were invited by the Syrian government, and therefore acted within international law. A leaked US intelligence document actually praised their efficiency.
Assad is certainly no saint (unless you compare him to America & Europe's close allies in Saudi and Israel), and responded brutally to the Arab Spring protests just prior to the war. But there is no connection between the students and school teachers who took part in that event and the deranged maniacs running amok in the north and hacking people's heads off. In fact, retired American general Wesley Clark actually included Syria on a list of nations America intended to 'take out' in plans drawn up shortly after 9/11. Others included Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.
Why does America wan't regime change in Syria. Well, for one thing Damascus is aligned with Moscow and Tehran. It has been that way ever since Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA attempted to follow up their anti-democratic coup in Iran in 1953 with a similar operation in Syria. Meanwhile, the Assads are not Sunni and therefore hated by Saudi, they have a land dispute with Israel which still refuses to return land stolen (according to the UN) in the 1967 war, and they refused a Qatari request to build a pipeline across their country to Turkey & Europe, favouring an Irani pipeline directly into the Mediterranean instead. The latter is probably the major reason for the current conflict.
Incidentally, I was in Syria just a few years before it all kicked off and it seemed relatively calm at the time, notwithstanding an influx of refugees from Iraq following the Bush & Blair invasion. I also have good friends in the south of Turkey, closer to th border, who I chat with on FB about the issue from time to time.
Re: Syria
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:26 pm
by UGagain
Sandydragon wrote:
UGagain wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:
Theres an interesting article on Bellingcat .
Bellingcat: the Dead Cat Factory
Need a Dead Cat?
Call Bellingcat.
Dead Cats thrown straight on your table.
How is Bellingcat any different to what you do? Except they tend to be more evidence based and get a more discerning audience. Keep on ignoring those inconvenient truths.
I genuinely laughed out loud at that.
You're a true believer.
Re: Syria
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:30 pm
by UGagain
Sandydragon wrote:Elections were only held in regime held areas. So those who generally oppose Assad couldn't vote anyway.
AS much as this is dressed up by some as outsiders alone interfering, this is a genuine civil war, brought about in a huge part by Assad himself. Any long term peace deal that finds him remaining in post as President for more than an interim period won't work, even if Putin decided to add his weight to the outcome.
Dude, nobody who is awake believes that shit anymore.
And it isn't up to the masters of the universe that you slavishly follow to decide who the president of Syria is going to be.
Re: Syria
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:33 pm
by UGagain
rowan wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:Elections were only held in regime held areas. So those who generally oppose Assad couldn't vote anyway.
AS much as this is dressed up by some as outsiders alone interfering, this is a genuine civil war, brought about in a huge part by Assad himself. Any long term peace deal that finds him remaining in post as President for more than an interim period won't work, even if Putin decided to add his weight to the outcome.
The war began when NATO and its allies (notably Saudi and Israel) began arming and training rebels, many of whom entered quite freely from the northern border. A large number of them were Iraqi Sunnis disenfranchised by the Bush & Blair invasion. Not surprisingly, therefore, some turned directly to committing acts of terrorism, slaughtering Alawite families in cold blood and so on. The chemical weapons attack in Damascus, which almost triggered another US bombing campaign, has since been traced back to the rebels (the source of those weapons lying north of the border).
The involvement of NATO members in the conflict was uninvited and highly dubious. We know at least one of them was working with the rebels/terrorists to steal oil, and bombing so-called ISID's enemies in the process. The Russians, however, were invited by the Syrian government, and therefore acted within international law. A leaked US intelligence document actually praised their efficiency.
Assad is certainly no saint (unless you compare him to America & Europe's close allies in Saudi and Israel), and responded brutally to the Arab Spring protests just prior to the war. But there is no connection between the students and school teachers who took part in that event and the deranged maniacs running amok in the north and hacking people's heads off. In fact, retired American general Wesley Clark actually included Syria on a list of nations America intended to 'take out' in plans drawn up shortly after 9/11. Others included Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.
Why does America wan't regime change in Syria. Well, for one thing Damascus is aligned with Moscow and Tehran. It has been that way ever since Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA attempted to follow up their anti-democratic coup in Iran in 1953 with a similar operation in Syria. Meanwhile, the Assads are not Sunni and therefore hated by Saudi, they have a land dispute with Israel which still refuses to return land stolen (according to the UN) in the 1967 war, and they refused a Qatari request to build a pipeline across their country to Turkey & Europe, favouring an Irani pipeline directly into the Mediterranean instead. The latter is probably the major reason for the current conflict.
Incidentally, I was in Syria just a few years before it all kicked off and it seemed relatively calm at the time, notwithstanding an influx of refugees from Iraq following the Bush & Blair invasion. I also have good friends in the south of Turkey, closer to th border, who I chat with on FB about the issue from time to time.
Indeed, over a million of them. And instead of getting help from the 'international community" the got economic warfare aka sanctions. And Robert (death squads'r'us) Ford running around the country inciting 'democracy activists'.
