The Syrian Crisis

[amoy]

Very confusing...

The 4th Media » Propaganda War: The Houla Massacre Committed by The West’s “Free Syrian Army” But They Accuse Syrian Gov’t

The 4th Media » “Syrian Rebels Tried To Get Me Killed,” Says A UK’s Channel 4 Correspondent

 

[ashicjose]

Sir, there is a lot of propaganda and fake news too to show the Asad regime in bad light. I dont know where I saw/read but there was a story on this kind of fake news. But the thing is that the rebels have western and their neighbors support and everything is suppressed or exaggerated depending on the need.

Who is behind this propaganda and what they are going to gain from it ?
1.Syria is not a oil producing country so west has no interest in it and if is it for the Israel I guess they are more secure with the Assad regime.
2.If is it for the Sunny why the Turkey being part of it ,they don't have any problem with the Shia.

 

[Yusuf]

Who is behind this propaganda and what they are going to gain from it ?
1.Syria is not a oil producing country so west has no interest in it and if is it for the Israel I guess they are more secure with the Assad regime.
2.If is it for the Sunny why the Turkey being part of it ,they don't have any problem with the Shia.

Propaganda is certainly from the Saudis and the US which wants to see a regime change in Syria. If Syria falls, one ally of Iran goes. If Syria falls, may be the people of Iran will rise. Many reasons.

 

[ashicjose]

If the US (west)behind in this they have enough reason for a military intervention example Libya they didn't wait for anyone and there is nothing attractive like oil. Actually they want Assad in power to keep GCC under control by showing the Shia threat together with Iran.

 

[Yusuf]

If the US (west)behind in this they have enough reason for a military intervention example Libya they didn't wait for anyone and there is nothing attractive like oil. Actually they want Assad in power to keep GCC under control by showing the Shia threat together with Iran.

That's what should be the case. Read up on this thread. Unfortunately the policy seems to be wrong as far as the US goes. They want Asad to go as he is seen as a Iranian ally.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

That's what should be the case. Read up on this thread. Unfortunately the policy seems to be wrong as far as the US goes. They want Asad to go as he is seen as a Iranian ally.

US should focus some attention on Lebanon after Assad goes. IMHO.

 

[Armand2REP]

Netanyahu is ranting up a storm. Israel had been relatively silent until now.

 

[pmaitra]

Obama Prepares Air Strikes On Syria

Report: Obama Prepares Air Strikes On Syria
June 12th, 2012

Russia's climbdown sets stage for regime change

(PaulWatson) – President Barack Obama has told the US Navy and Air Force to prepare air strikes on Syria as part of a "no fly zone" that will be enforced with the aid of British and French military power, according to a report.


"Their mission will be to knock out Assad's central regime and military command centers so as to shake regime stability and restrict Syrian army and air force activity for subduing rebel action and wreaking violence on civilian populations," reports Israeli intelligence outfit DebkaFile.

Having threatened military action for months, the United States was apparently encouraged by the fact that Russia is once again backing down from its harsh rhetoric and indicating that it will not oppose the toppling of President Bashar Al-Assad.

After having intimated that Russia would support Syria via indirect military means if NATO powers launched an attack, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Saturday that Russia "will be only glad to support such an outcome" (the ousting of Assad), suggesting Moscow has softened on the idea of regime change in Syria.

The likelihood of military intervention has been brought forward by reports that opposition rebels are planning to use chemical weapons and then blame the atrocity on Assad's regime.

Rebels attempted to stage a similar 'false flag' recently when British Channel 4 reporter Alex Thomson was purposefully led by rebels into a trap whereby it was hoped he would be killed by government troops and his death used as a propaganda stunt.

Hostility towards Syria from the international community has intensified in recent weeks, particularly after the recent massacre in Houla which was blamed on Assad's forces despite the fact that eyewitnesses in Houla said opposition rebels were responsible for the slaughter, which killed 108 people – mostly women and children.

As Daniel McAdams highlights, the Houla massacre has been exalted as the primary justification for military intervention and yet the media-generated narrative behind the atrocity has completely collapsed.

"A respected mainstream publication, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), has reported that the infamous Houla massacre in Syria, which the US and NATO hoped would be the casus belli for their planned invasion, was in fact carried out by rebel forces," writes McAdams.

As we reported last weekend, the presence of Syrian National Transitional Council head Bassma Kodmani at the recent Bilderberg confab of global power brokers in Chantilly Virginia strongly suggested that a military assault on Syria was nearing.

US air strikes on Syria will be launched without Congressional approval, just as Obama green lighted the attack on Libya with a churlish disregard for the constitutional process. US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has repeatedly stated that Congressional authorization for a military assault on Syria will not be sought by the Obama administration, which considers NATO and the UN to be the supreme authority.

Given what happened last year in Libya, where Al-Qaeda flags now fly high over courthouses and other centers of power while minorities are brutally oppressed – allied to what is set to unfold in Syria – our warning back in 2008 before Obama even took office has become even more prescient.

"Obama may eventually withdraw a portion of troops from Iraq, but mark our words, they won't be home long before they are sent off to bomb another broken-backed third world country, this time in the name of a United Nations-backed "humanitarian" war, just as Bill Clinton presided over in Somalia and Serbia with the full support of the establishment political left." we wrote on November 4 2008 in an article entitled, The More Things "Change" The More They Stay The Same.

The same "humanitarian" bloodbath inflicted on Libya, which went from the most prosperous country in Africa to a sectarian nightmare ruled by brigades of armed thugs, now awaits Syria unless the likes of China and Russia back up their rhetoric with any real action, a scenario that is becoming increasingly unlikely with each passing day.

Source: Report: Obama Prepares Air Strikes On Syria | Dprogram.net

 

[W.G.Ewald]

re: Obama Prepares Air Strikes On Syria

Influx of Heavy Arms Pushes Syria Toward Civil War

Link

 

[trackwhack]

re: Obama Prepares Air Strikes On Syria

14% Shias, 12% Christians . Pack up and run before Assad is killed. The super power just authorized your genocide.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Re: Obama Prepares Air Strikes On Syria

"Their mission will be to knock out Assad's central regime and military command centers so as to shake regime stability and restrict Syrian army and air force activity for subduing rebel action and wreaking violence on civilian populations," reports Israeli intelligence outfit DebkaFile.

I do not see anything about this here http://www.debka.com/#.

 

[Son of Govinda]

Way to go Obama.... Install another Taliban regine and make Iranians and shias workdwide even more anti-Israel/anti-American.

 

[amoy]

Henry Kissinger: Syrian Intervention Risks Upsetting The Global OrderNews About Syria - English: Syrian intervention risks upsetting global order

In Syria, calls for humanitarian and strategic intervention merge. At the heart of the Muslim world, Syria has, under Bashar al-Assad, assisted Iran's strategy in the Levant and Mediterranean. It supported Hamas, which rejects the Israeli state, and Hezbollah, which undermines Lebanon's cohesion. The United States has strategic as well as humanitarian reasons to favor the fall of Assad and to encourage international diplomacy to that end. On the other hand, not every strategic interest rises to a cause for war; were it otherwise, no room would be left for diplomacy.

As military force is considered, several underlying issues must be addressed: While the United States accelerates withdrawals from military interventions in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, how can a new military commitment in the same region be justified, particularly one likely to face similar challenges?

Does the new approach — less explicitly strategic and military, and geared more toward diplomatic and moral issues — solve the dilemmas that plagued earlier efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan, which ended in withdrawal and a divided America? Or does it compound the difficulty by staking U.S. prestige and morale on domestic outcomes that America has even fewer means and less leverage to shape?

Who replaces the ousted leadership, and what do we know about it? Will the outcome improve the human condition and the security situation? Or do we risk repeating the experience with the Taliban, armed by America to fight the Soviet invader but then turned into a security challenge to us?

The difference between strategic and humanitarian intervention becomes relevant. The world community defines humanitarian intervention by consensus, so difficult to achieve that it generally limits the effort. On the other hand, intervention that is unilateral or based on a coalition of the willing evokes the resistance of countries fearing the application of the policy to their territories (such as China and Russia).

Hence it is more difficult to achieve domestic support for it. The doctrine of humanitarian intervention is in danger of being suspended between its maxims and the ability to implement them; unilateral intervention, by contrast, comes at the price of international and domestic support.

Military intervention, humanitarian or strategic, has two prerequisites:

First, a consensus on governance after the overthrow of the status quo is critical. If the objective is confined to deposing a specific ruler, a new civil war could follow in the resulting vacuum, as armed groups contest the succession, and outside countries choose different sides. Second, the political objective must be explicit and achievable in a domestically sustainable time period.

I doubt that the Syrian issue meets these tests.

We cannot afford to be driven from expedient to expedient into undefined military involvement in a conflict taking on an increasingly sectarian character.

In reacting to one human tragedy, we must be careful not to facilitate another. In the absence of a clearly articulated strategic concept, a world order that erodes borders and merges international and civil wars can never catch its breath. A sense of nuance is needed to give perspective to the proclamation of absolutes. This is a nonpartisan issue, and it should be treated in that manner in the national debate we are entering.

 

[pack leader]

Re: Obama Prepares Air Strikes On Syria

I do not see anything about this here DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

debka is uber trash blog for conspiracy lovers

always ignore

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Re: Obama Prepares Air Strikes On Syria

debka is uber trash blog for conspiracy lovers

always ignore

So this report can be ignored as well:

Report: Obama Prepares Air Strikes On Syria | Dprogram.net

President Barack Obama has told the US Navy and Air Force to prepare air strikes on Syria as part of a "no fly zone" that will be enforced with the aid of British and French military power, according to a report.

I have found no way to confirm it.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Re: Obama Prepares Air Strikes On Syria

debka is uber trash blog for conspiracy lovers

always ignore

Debka.com - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wired.com's Noah Shachtman wrote in 2001 that the site "clearly reports with a point of view; the site is unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics," adding that Debka had partnered with the right-wing news site WorldNetDaily for a weekly subscription product.[3] Yediot Achronot investigative reporter Ronen Bergman states that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as neo-conservative elements of the US Republican Party, "whose worldview is that the situation is bad and is only going to get worse," and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1] Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf calls Debka his "favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors."[4]

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Re: Obama Prepares Air Strikes On Syria

Debka had partnered with the right-wing news site WorldNetDaily for a weekly subscription product.

WorldNetDaily

Sometimes called WhirledNutsDaily.

 

[pack leader]

Re: Obama Prepares Air Strikes On Syria

WorldNetDaily

Sometimes called WhirledNutsDaily.

Israel inn hard ( hard right )
Jerusalem post (right /center )
nrg .co .il (center )
ynet co il co il(left )
haarez co il (hard left )

the only somewhat trust worthy Israeli news in English
i read them in Hebrew and cross reference to understand reality
if you lack time read the j post they are usually close to the truth

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Who's Flying the New Syrian Choppers?

Blog: Who's Flying the New Syrian Choppers?

Are Syrians going to pilot these new helicopters? Training a pilot is an extremely time consuming effort. In fact it is arguably easier to build a fighter aircraft or helicopter than it is to train the pilot. It is therefore highly unlikely that Assad has a barracks full of trained helicopter pilots sitting around playing canasta because they have no machines to fly. So absent a trained pilot pool, who is going to be flying these new helicopters? Russians? Or perhaps Iranians?

If anyone other than Syrians are the pilots, this puts the transfer of these helicopters from Russia in an entirely different light, and presents a even greater threat to the stability of the Middle East. Of course Russians, when known as the Soviets, have often provided "technical advisors" as they did in Vietnam. The United States did the same thing as well, until the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, when we committed actual combat troops to the war. What will the Russians do if Assad doesn't appear to be winning? Iran is open in its support of the Assad regime, and the same question must be asked of what they will do if their pet dictator begins to look as if he is losing.

 

[LurkerBaba]

Hillary accused Russia of sending attack helicopters to Syria


Russia sending attack helicopters to Syria: US

By Jo Biddle (AFP) – 21 hours ago

WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused Russia Tuesday of sending attack helicopters to Syria, warning it will escalate the fighting and openly questioning whether the UN mission can survive beyond the end of its mandate in July.[/QUOTE]

AFP: Russia sending attack helicopters to Syria: US


----

Russia has denied this

MOSCOW – Russia's foreign minister has rejected the U.S. claim that Moscow is sending attack helicopters to Syria.

Russian news agencies reported Wednesday that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denied a claim by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that "there are attack helicopters on the way from Russia to Syria." Lavrov said during a visit to Iran that Russia is completing earlier weapons contracts with Syria exclusively for air defense systems.

Clinton said Tuesday that the shipment "will escalate the conflict quite dramatically."

Lavrov says that Russia isn't providing Syria with weapons that can be used against peaceful demonstrators.

Russia denies sending attack helicopters to Syria | Fox News