Syria - What should we do if anything?

[eble 3]

Lots of rumours of UK special forces in Syria, it would be expected to see the CIA/SAS messing about, getting a bit hairy with Russians and Irainians on the ground also, this could be a real mess.

http://www.debka.com/article/22133/British-forces-in-Syria-Assad-presidential-compound-said-under-attack

[PELHAM 10]

Abdelhakim Belhadj, Salafist and a former Islamist fighter in the Soviet-Afghanistan war. He did join the Taliban and had close ties with Al Quaida, imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay.

No, completely untrue, was never a member of the Taliban (he fought with the Mujahideen against the Soviets, not the same thing at all) and the links with Al Qaida were nonsense planted by Gadafi agents. The western intelligence agencies were duped into sending him back to Libya which is what Gadafi wanted as Belhadj was part of the Libyan opposition. The man has fought against opression all his life and the part my government played in sending him into the clutches of Gadafi makes me rather ashamed. His brother was killed by Gadafi loyalists during the uprising. There is no disaster in Libya either, things are not ideal but nothing worse than expected.

---------- Post added 06-27-2012 at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was 06-26-2012 at 11:49 PM ----------

Lots of rumours of UK special forces in Syria, it would be expected to see the CIA/SAS messing about, getting a bit hairy with Russians and Irainians on the ground also, this could be a real mess.

http://www.debka.com/article/22133/British-forces-in-Syria-Assad-presidential-compound-said-under-attack

Obviously not true, sources in Russia keep pushing this disinfo and it has been denied repeatedly and no proof has emerged. They say they are there to create a buffer zone along the Turkish border rofl, not a special forces mission, they don't have the numbers or equipment either. It's the usual crap released in an attempt to change bad headlines.

---------- Post added at 01:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 AM ----------

Do you think that free elections currently would make any sense with the current hate between the muslim groups ? The Assad Regime is an hideous dictate, but is it worse than others. Is Saudi Arabia a democratic nation for example, where woman get stoned to death or heads get knocked off ?

Judge for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria

I would say Syria IS worse than Saudi as the number of deaths is far greater and there are large numbers of refugees leaving the country, there is an obvious humanitarian crisis. When did Saudi last bomb it's own cities, have a massacre, refugee crisis or a defection from the military? Also in Syria the security aparatus is designed to preserve the leadership of just 1 person, it's 100% political. Saudi is a more complex case because it is the centre of Islam and is governed by Sharia law. Regarding the secular status of Syria that is up to them to decide. If the majority want an Islamic state and vote for it, who can criticise that? If they start persecuting minorities I would oppose it, but that possibility is no excuse for maintaining the current mess.

RE stoning you are spreading untruths again, women currently do not get stoned to death in Saudi and the people beheaded are sentenced quite openly by the Sharia courts, the vast majority for religious crimes. Now I have a big problem with religion in general and I disagree with Capital punishment but can you show me refugee camps where Saudis are living in exile?

In Syria places like Hama have partially emptied and the citizens are seeking refuge from their own government in Palestinian refugee camps! Most Saudis don't seem to have a problem with the way their country is governed no matter how bizarre it seems to us. Political tollerance and general everyday freedom of expression does not exist in either nation. Syria is something that needs urgent change as thousands of people are dying now, that isn't happening in Saudi Arabia. They can be left to come to their own senses, perhaps we can target them with cruise missiles loaded with Richard Dawkins novels? lol

(I'll save you much pain with Dawkins, he is a difficult read. Basically he suggests the obvious, religion was made up by people to explain what they didn't know. Now we know 99.9% of what there is to know, religion today is practiced by the ignorantly stupid and poorly educated. Having had discussions with devout people of all kinds, from a guy fresh out of a Pakistani madrasah to my devout Christian relatives, I agree with him.)

Edited June 27, 2012 by PELHAM

[giorgygr 61]

I saw pictures of dead families -out there- some time ago.

News said the casualties were from rebel territories (=Muslims btw)

I almost (or did) cried seeing all this.

Some days ago i read testimonials from lots of Christian/Catholic apostles..that rebels killing any Christian and catholic they see (Civilian families of course.)

THIS is happening years and years all over the world (especially wealthy on resources lands with poorly educated people*by luck)

So..

If you "really" care for human rights etc..lets start thinking how to build a better world for the next generations.

*and don't tell me with guns and stuff..or i ll eat my hat

[oxmox 73]

Well then I dont know how you should call the chaotic situation in Libya, There are still fights between rebels and pro gaddafi groups, the economic of the country is destroyed, the number of civilian victims did raise to a very high number, Navy Pillay from the UN and commisionar for human rights talks about 8500 imprisoned and tortured detainees, the MSF did suspend its operations in Misrata after the situation there became "impossible" with prisoners "being tortured and denied urgent medical care", apart from terror attacks Libyens are fighting each other and the security situation has deteriorated. Militias continue to constitute the primary force in Libya, militarily and politically. They represent regions, tribes and powerful families, though some are simply criminal.

Just one article out of others available from the main press:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/14/libya-needs-more-than-elections

call it what you want....if not a desaster, it is chaotic for sure.

I was talking about the political system and not how many someone killed. You cant say how the other dictatorships would react, actually they did react against the arab spring movements but these smaller clashes were bloody depressed. Saudi Arabia has a state religion as far I know and Syria is the only arabic country which is secular.

Talking about Human Rights in Saudi Arabia ... The state religion is Wahabism one of the most severe and intolerant form of the Islam, you cant even take the bible into the country or pray in public. Not to speak of woman rights, the complete use of the Sharia and so on....it would be hypocritical to say that SA would shine out more positive with its political system. I dont know when was the last stoning but there were incidents some years ago... Iam not that religious, but people should not have problems with religions which is just an idle wish of course, actually the 3 main religions Judaism, Islam and Christianity are based on Abraham, they have all the same roots. In Islam for example, Jesus is a very loved prophet.

Do you really think you can solve the conflict with cruise missiles...of course not, you are just joking. A change is welcome of course, but it is the question how....you wont solve historical clashes between muslim groups with just bombing them. This is a different situation, its a religious conflict.

Pelham, at the end we will watch it anyway on TV or read it in the newspaper how this whole desaster will end..... =)

Edited June 27, 2012 by oxmox

[spooky lynx 73]

He is not a spokesman for the opposition, he is simply putting his own views to the media. You will note that people inside Syria are not freely able to do so as there is no free press and the international media are not allowed in the country (obviously they are hiding something). For doing so he would probably be arrested, tortured and killed along with family members. As he is now in Turkey which is a more democratic and free country than either Syria or Russia he can say whatever he likes. I refer you to the democracy index (Syria and Russia seem to have much in common there too lol):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

88 Turkey 5.73 Hybrid regime Parliamentary republic

117 Russia 3.92 Authoritarian regime Federalism, semi-presidential system, bicameralism

157 Syria 1.99 Authoritarian regime Presidential system, single party, republic

Sure, his (and other defectors' too) opinion is the same as the opposition agenda just accidentally! And he talks the same as western governments accidentally too, that's truth!:D

Dear Pelham, I don't want to ruin your childish dreams but... There's no free press. At all. Everywhere. Press is called the 4th power (after judical, legislative and executive branches) not just for lulz. So your fetish called international media does not equal reliable, honest, impartial and free from somebody's influence source of information. Try to say something against LGBT or about black racism in western countries and you'll see how truly free are media.

P.S. Those indexes do not refer any real things just because one things - they are made by engaged persons who have their own agenda, live in another country (doubt they've been in all the countries they list) and ways to count the index. I may establish my own agency and publish my own index of something, but it doesn't mean that it will reflect real thing in the country. So in 99,99999999999999% all that indexes of democracy/happiness/insert other stuff you want are just horse apples.

[maturin 12]

I do so love the creative ways people come up with to deal with their inferiority complexes. If you were a starving North Korean, you'd be pointing at U.S. soup kitchens and claiming equivalence.

And you're not fooling me. I know plenty of rational Russians.

There's no free press. At all. Everywhere.

This statement is just as idiotic as:

Democracies never start wars.

There is no corruption in Western politics.

Etc.

[spooky lynx 73]

Idiotic? Better prove the counter.

[maturin 12]

The U.S. is full of media outlets that aren't owned by larger corporations, and the government has little power over what even the corporate media says.

All Russians are drunks. Prove the counter.

Sheesh, you make me want to start learning Polish instead.

[spooky lynx 73]

The U.S. is full of media outlets that aren't owned by larger corporations, and the government has little power over what even the corporate media says.

All Russians are drunks. Prove the counter.

Sheesh, you make me want to start learning Polish instead.

And what's the real influence and value of that outlets, and how many of them hold the topics about politics (both inner and foreign)? I know there are plenty of journals, sites, newspapers, TV channels etc. But do all of them have news and politics topics that affect public mind? Do all of them have large auditory? Not so many people are wise enough to analyze a number of different sources to get some kind of real info.

P.S. You'd better not start offending the whole nation if you don't have anything wise to say to your opponent. Mkay?

[fraczek 4]

He is not "offending the whole nation", he is pointing out a logical fallacy you have commited here, Spooky. Logic is pretty important in what strives to be a rational discussion. I could go on about free press, but I guess we don't share the same discourse. Of course there is plenty of free press, just look at the likes of Anna Politkovskaya. Oops, she got murdered for speaking her views out...

Edited June 27, 2012 by fraczek

[spooky lynx 73]

I've read enough of Politkovskaya's articles and may say - they have not much common with really free and unbiased view and opinion. One fact - she fully admitted so called genocide of Chechens but refused to admit the same genocide of Russians in 1991-1994. Despite the well known facts that nobody killed Chechens only for their nation, but Russians, Ukrainians, Armenians and others were killed just because they were not belonging to Chechen nation. But she refused to understand it. So does she has right to be named as the example of the free press?

P.S. Here's her words about it. Third question from the beginning (link in Russian).

QUESTION

Dear Ms. Politkovskaya!

I read your reports from Chechnya with a sincere interest and white envy of your brilliant journalistic style. Just one question: why I do not remember any of your articles in the period 1991-1994, when the genocide in Chechnya was Russian? And you can hardly dispute the fact that the genocide took part (in one form or another), almost all of the Chechen population. Some people robbed and raped, while others bought for a song at home and belongings of Russian refugees, and others with sympathy watched the scene. NO ONE any noticeable performance Chechens against Russian genocide in all these three years I do not know. Taking this into consideration your (and your colleagues) view held in the "genocide of the Chechen people" seems somewhat one-sided. Genocide in Chechnya actually occurred. Just do not we have it performed.

However, perhaps I am not aware of any information. I will be very grateful if you dissuading me.

With respect to your journalistic talent,

Kirill Zubkov

ANSWER

Dear Cyril!

In 1991 - 1994 years, I did not have the physical opportunity to explore the issue of genocide in Chechnya of the Russian people. However, the genocide of the Chechens of this period is obvious. And he carried out part of the military forces and the Chechens themselves. Many times I tried to set for itself to explain many facts which were witnessed as an unfortunate accident or stupidity of the performer, but each time suffered defeat: in relation to the Chechens in Russia still has a system for their extermination. Nothing else is happening is simply impossible to explain.

Alas.

P.P.S. Translated via google, so I'm sorry for bad translation - lack of free time.:o

[PELHAM 10]

Sure, his (and other defectors' too) opinion is the same as the opposition agenda just accidentally! And he talks the same as western governments accidentally too, that's truth!:D

Dear Pelham, I don't want to ruin your childish dreams but... There's no free press. At all. Everywhere. Press is called the 4th power (after judical, legislative and executive branches) not just for lulz. So your fetish called international media does not equal reliable, honest, impartial and free from somebody's influence source of information. Try to say something against LGBT or about black racism in western countries and you'll see how truly free are media.

P.S. Those indexes do not refer any real things just because one things - they are made by engaged persons who have their own agenda, live in another country (doubt they've been in all the countries they list) and ways to count the index. I may establish my own agency and publish my own index of something, but it doesn't mean that it will reflect real thing in the country. So in 99,99999999999999% all that indexes of democracy/happiness/insert other stuff you want are just horse apples.

ROFL you remind me of a mushroom. (It's a joke here along the lines of kept in the dark and fed on manure)

Err we have a huge debate here over gay marriage with opponents and proponents freely reported and regarding black racism we had a scandal over the sexual exploitation of young girls and a black politician thoroughly criticised across the press for racist statements so no that argument doesn't stack up either. We also don't kill journalists and assassinate and poison those who opose our Prime minister / President.

90% of the worlds media thinks what is happening in Syria is wrong and that the Russian and Chinese view - a purely selfish one, as the only reasoning behind it is realisation they are becoming the thin edge of the wedge in an increasingly free world - is both crass and absurd.

Edited June 27, 2012 by PELHAM

[gammadust 12]

Syrian rebels defending freedom of the press.

[batto 17]

Syrian rebels defending freedom of the press.

That's what freedom fighters do!

[PELHAM 10]

Syrian rebels defending freedom of the press.

Unfortunate that people died, but they had to fight their way through armed security guards to get into the building. The longer Assad stays the more bitter things get which is dissapointing. The article is not entirely correct, that TV station was set up as separate, government-funded entity in late 2010 by Syria’s information ministry so is not really a non-government news station at all. It's been broadcasting Government propaganda for the last few weeks which has obviously wound someone up enough to take it off air.

Edited June 27, 2012 by PELHAM

[spooky lynx 73]

Government posts its propaganda, rebels post their. Isn't it true freedom of speech? Or freedom is not for everyone?

[eble 3]

Freedom - such an overused word in this day and age.

With the erosion of what in the west we call freedoms, I wonder what the East German Stasi would think, all communications monitored to ensure no one is a threat to the state, it's all for the greater good so were told. So we don't put a bullet in the back of peoples head mostly, but we'll imprision you without charge for years on end if we decide your a terrorist.

Welcome to the 21st century version of Freedom 2.0

We have decided in the West the best way to help Syria is to supply weapons and safe passage along the Syrian border for a few rebels so they can continue the slaughter, this could drag on for years, Libya is a great example of the disaster that will unfold, you will have ethnic killings all over again, hope Britain and US are ready to help home the 2m Christians.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-united-states-still-the-land-of-the-free/2012/01/04/gIQAvcD1wP_story.html

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,†the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.â€)

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters†to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. It is not defending the power before the Supreme Court — a power described by Justice Anthony Kennedy as “Orwellian.†(Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.

Whatever counrty you live in right now just be thankful it's not Syria, the big boys are playing and the Syrian people are going to suffer.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Eble

[PELHAM 10]

@Eble nice list of very flimsy examples and rare or non existent events to justify your ridiculous claims. If you dig into each item on your list you will find that:

a) What you have said is incorrect, taken out of context or is only partially true.

b) Might be possible, rarely happens or has never actually occurred.

c) There are many good logical and legal reasons behind it.

d) Much is logical fallacy, you find 1 flimsy example of something in the US and use it to justify what occurs daily to many thousands of people in places like Zimbabwe, Syria, Iran and North Korea.

e) I agree with one of the comments "Rather than appealing to sound logic, Mr. Turley (and you) feeds into our fascination with conspiracy theories and our fear of Big Brother."

eg:

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Not entirely true is it? The US attorney general outlined a three-part test for determining when a targeted killing against a U.S. citizen is legal. He said the government must determine after careful review that the citizen poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S., capture is not feasible and the killing would be consistent with laws of war. Attorney General Eric Holder said that the decision to kill a U.S. citizen living abroad who poses a terrorist threat "is among the gravest that government leaders can face," but justified lethal action as legal and sometimes necessary in the war on terror. Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a drone strike in Yemen where he spent many years involved with Al-Qaida, his other criminal and numerous terrorist activities are listed on his wiki page below. His contact details were found or his name linked to nearly every major terrorist attack or attempt in the past 15 years including 9/11. Not only did he provide active support and fund raising, he gave them the religious approval and reasoning to kill innocent people.

Now lets look at Mr. al-Awlaki and see what he has been up to to provoke such a response:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Quite a long list isn't it?

Anwar al-Awlaki was given numerous chances to stop his active engagement in crime and terrorism, arrested and released several times, repeated warnings etc. but he chose to continue. As he was in hiding in Yemen, protected by a tribal network, capture was not a feasible option. What do you do when someone is involved in 1000's of deaths world wide and intends to help commit more? The argument that nothing can be done until he presents himself for arrest in the USA is laughable. Around 4 US citizens have been killed by US forces and to the best of my knowledge only al-Awlaki was targeted deliberately. So for this incident the US is as bad as Syria where 10,000s have died just because they said the wrong thing, didn't support the right leader or lived in the wrong place or were a relative of the wrong person?

Apologists for a regime that executes people against the walls of their own houses on a daily basis disgust me, not sure how you missed it but the Syrian people have been suffering for decades:

DjbdGx9Au94

Edited June 28, 2012 by PELHAM

[gammadust 12]

THE COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSIVE WAR.

The Tribunal now turns to the consideration of the Crimes against peace charged in the Indictment. Count One of the Indictment charges the defendants with conspiring or having a common plan to commit crimes against peace. Count Two of the Indictment charges the defendants with committing specific crimes against peace by planning, preparing, initiating, and waging wars of aggression against a number of other States. It will be convenient to consider the question of the existence of a common plan and the question of aggressive war together, and to deal later in this Judgment with the question of the individual responsibility of the defendants.

The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

(continued)

The first acts of aggression referred to in the Indictment are the seizure of Austria and Czechoslovakia: and the first war of aggression charged in the Indictment is the war against Poland begun on the 1st September 1939.

Before examining that charge it is necessary to look more closely at some of the events which preceded these acts of aggression. The war against Poland did not come suddenly out of an otherwise clear sky; the evidence has made it plain that this war of aggression, as well as the seizure of Austria and Czechoslovakia, was pre-meditated and carefully prepared, and was not undertaken until the moment was thought opportune for it to be carried through as a definite part of the pre-ordained scheme and plan.

For the aggressive designs of the Nazi Government were not accidents arising out of the immediate political situation in Europe and the world; they were a deliberate and essential part of Nazi foreign policy.

From the beginning, the National Socialist movement claimed that its object was to unite the German people in the consciousness of their mission and destiny, based on inherent qualities of race, and under the guidance of the Fuehrer.

For its achievement, two things were deemed to be essential: The disruption of the European order as it had existed since the Treaty of Versailles, and the creation of a Greater Germany beyond the frontiers of 1914. This necessarily involved the seizure of foreign territories.

War was soon to be inevitable, or at the very least, highly probable, if these purposes were to be accomplished. The German people, therefore, with all their resources, were to be organized as a great political-military army, schooled to obey without question any policy decreed by the State.

We'll see if some years from now there will be a "Nuremberg" for the aggressions already commited or the one currently being forged.

What should we do if anything?

Help the "German" people NOT be "schooled to obey without question any policy decreed by the State."

Help the "German" people nurture critical thought, specially against information enabling the agenda of war.

[eble 3]

I might have missed it because like the rest of the Western world we didn't give a shit about Syria, who cared less what they were doing and who they were killing.

Now that we might have a chance to change the people in power, suddenly I supposed to care, the west is getting invloved in yet another internal conflict we have no business being in.

I counter your shot against the wall in Syria with US drone attacks, pretty much the same end result, in a lot of cases people unrelated to the target are killed, no one cares, that poor child was worth it for the target etc.

I'm not apologising for what is happening in Syria right now, but what the west is doing by arming these militants will make matters much worse.

You can come back and tell me all about it when the Western forces have withdrawn from Afghanistan and the Taliban take over again and seek revenge, lets see where our Western morals are then, we got Osama, job done now lets leave etc.

[batto 17]

the west is getting invloved in yet another internal conflict we have no business being in.

Well, if the goal is to make Syria our ally or at least disrupt it so it'll be easier to kick their ass in future then it all makes perfect sense, no?

[PELHAM 10]

Well, if the goal is to make Syria our ally or at least disrupt it so it'll be easier to kick their ass in future then it all makes perfect sense, no?

The goal is humanitarian and the ending of Assad, once Assad is gone there will be no need to kick anyones ass. And FYI Eble, the west is not arming the rebels, it's members of the Arab league. Once again no logic. RE Afghanistan, it will be Pakistan who will have to search their conscience for giving the Taliban a safe haven from which to kill civilians, shut down schools and plant more poppies, we will have done all we could to stop it.

[oxmox 73]

Some interesting parts of the History

Hope you read some parts of it, took me some time to write and select it from the sources...

Iam sure some of you did read a bit more already about the history in the near east/middle east in the last years and it is for sure interesting to talk about the historical background of this area and Syria itself to understand the conflict better.

The whole near east is actually an inferno in the last decades and a bigger part of the reason is found in the historical segmentation and economical interests in this regions. In 1915/16 with the Hussein-McMahon correspondence the arabs were promised their independency and huge areas awarded. This was only short time later canceled with an secret agreement and the purpose to segment the near and middle east between certain Great World Powers i.e. GB, France for geopolitical interests and the split for colonial territories in general. It is called the Sikes-Picot Agreement from 1916.

The Ottoman empire did rule a big part of the whole area for around 400 years and former provinces of the Ottoman Empire were actually later transformed into man-made countries, the different groups of people were disregarded. Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Oman aswell Palestine which plays a special role are the examples which are actually nations who were man-made formed by Greater Powers later in these times. Many of these regions/countries were finally formed with the Red Line Agreement in 1928, they were segmented due to geopolitical interestes, potential areas with supposed Oil ressources or already accessed sprouts. This is one of the reason why we see a lot of problems in this area until nowadays.

From 1920-1946 the French did get the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon which was the dissolution of the Arab Kingdom of Syria. The Arab Kingdom of Syria was the first modern Arab state after the end of the Ottoman Empire and did end already after only 4 months, King Feisal got another chance to rule in Iraq but was again dropped by the Brits after they discovered Oil in Kirkuk.

From 1920-24 "Syria" got devided by the French into 5 states ! State of Aleppo, State of Damascus, State of Alawites, State of Jabal Druze.

The reason for the total partition of Syria by France was the greater ease to control the Mandate. Syria was in general in this time rather anti-French with a pan-Arab nationalist bent.

"In early September, 1920, the French divided the territories of their mandate based on heterogeneous population, in an effort to grant 'local autonomy' to demographic regions. However, some argue that the French acted on their own interests, to intentionally divide the population, and so limit the spread of "the urban contagion of nationalist agitation. When the French finally occupied Syria in 1920, they recognized the term "Alawi", gave autonomy to them and other minority groups, and accepted them into their colonial troops. The French considered the Alawites, along with the Druze, as the only "warlike races" in the mandate territories, as excellent soldiers, and the communities from where they could recruit their best troops "

In 1925 the State of Syria was born, not included was Lebanon and the Alawi State.

From 1925-27 a great revolt with the State of Syria with anti imperialist and anti french sentiments did happening.

The Alawite territory, greatly rural, was largely uninvolved in the Great Revolt. The French had favored religious minorities, such as Druze and Alawi, and attempted to isolate them from mainstream nationalist culture. Many young men of rural Alawi communities joined French troops, enlisted in the 'troupes speciales,' a subset of the French forces in Syria at the time, looking for further social advancement from French connections.These troops were regional forces, recruited from minority populations, and often used to put down civil disorders.

From 1930-1958 the Syrian Republic was decleared.

In 1936 The Franco-Syrian treaty guaranteed incorporation of previously autonomous Druze and Alawite regions into Greater Syria.

In 1936, Palestine rebelled in a large uprising, the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939. While much trade with Jewish merchants went on uninterrupted, pan-Arab sentiment in Syria and the ties "of kinship, culture, and politics"[3] resulted in the extension of support to Palestine. Aside from strikes and demonstrations in favor of the Palestinians, Syrians smuggled arms into Palestine and led several successful guerrilla groups.

By the end of 1938, however, the French government "no longer found it advantageous to allow Syria to continue as a base for radical pan-Arab activities, in particular those associated with the revolt in Palestine." There was a French crack-down on Syrian nationalism.

On 3 December 1936 (effective in 1937), the Alawite state was re-incorporated into Syria as a concession by the French to the Nationalist Bloc, the party in power of the semi-autonomous Syrian government.

In September 1938, France again separated the Syrian Sanjak of Alexandretta and transformed it into the State of Hatay. The State of Hatay joined Turkey in the following year, in June 1939. Syria did not recognize the incorporation of Hatay into Turkey and the issue is still disputed until the present time.

On May 29, 1945, France bombed Damascus and tried to arrest its democratically elected leaders. While French planes were bombing Damascus, Prime Minister Faris al-Khoury was at the founding conference of the United Nations in San Francisco, presenting Syria's claim for independence from the French Mandate. Continuing pressure from Syrian nationalist groups and British pressure forced the French to evacuate their last troops on April 17, 1946.

The Syrian coup d'état of March 1949 was a bloodless coup d'état that took place on March 29 and was the first military coup in the history of Syria. It was led by the Army chief of staff at the time, Husni al-Zaim (Kurdish family background). According to Joseph Massad, a professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University, the coup was sponsored by the United States CIA [1] a conclusion in agreement with other historians such as Professor Douglas Little, and declassified records. He approved the Trans-Arabian Pipeline (TAPLINE), an American project designed to transport Saudi Arabian oil to Mediterranean ports.

The 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution, referred to as the Syrian Corrective Movement, was a military-pragmatist faction's takeover within the Ba'ath Party regime of Syria on 13 November 1970, bringing Hafez al-Assad to power. The 1970 Revolution was directed against a dominant left-wing faction of the party and, to some extent, provoked by what Assad and his supporters saw as adventurous and irresponsible foreign policies. This revolution turned Syria's social and political structures upside down. The Alawites, Assad's tribe, although no more than 12% of the population, came to occupy plum positions in every sector of life in Syria.

The 'Alawis' ascent took place over the course of half a century. In 1920 they were still the lowly minority just described; by 1970, they firmly ruled Syria. This stunning transformation took place in three stages: the French mandate (1920-46), the period of Sunni dominance (1946-63), and the era of 'Alawi consolidation (1963-70). Indeed, the establishment of French rule after World War I benefited the 'Alawis more than any other community. French efforts to cooperate with the minorities meant the 'Alawis gained political autonomy and escaped Sunni control;

This is a an interesting article from the NYT, it writes about the relationship between the Alewites sect and regular Muslims:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/syrias-ruling-alawite-sect/

"There was considerable tension within the Alawi community over the notion of unity with Syria in 1936, which was mandated by the Franco-Syrian treaty of that year. Part of this tension was the fear that Sunnis would discriminate against Alawis in their courts, as had happened in the past. Under Ottoman law, Alawis were refused the right to give testimony in court because they were not considered to be Muslims or People of the Book."

Although the Alawites are recognized as Muslims in Syria today, and rule the country, sectarian considerations still linger just below the surface.

The French built a local army and they recruited minorities, largely. And the Alawites were heavily recruited into this army.

And within 10 years - by 1955 it's estimated that Alawites made up almost 60 percent of the noncommissioned officers. By the mid-60s, Alawites took over the military and with the military they took over the country. So by 1970, Hafez Assad takes over, consolidates Alawite power in his own family, ..(Prof. Joshua Landis) ....

Source: most of it wikipedia, New York Times

It is quiete interesting to read the Syrian history, it is complicated and the influence of the French Mandate, the upraising of the Alawi and all these coupes...of course only a part of the history was posted.

Edited June 29, 2012 by oxmox

[Tonci87 163]

So basically French, British and American imperialism are to blame for what happens today? I agree with that.

[ProfTournesol 956]

So basically French, British and American imperialism are to blame for what happens today? I agree with that.

And of course, Iran, Lebanon, Saoudi Arabia, Quatar, Russia and China aren't responsible for anything anytime.