The Syrian Crisis

[thakur_ritesh]

I think it's only a matter of time now! NATO is going to be all over Syria, militarily which is.

 

[Yusuf]

Looks preplanned at the expense of a fighter jet and two pilots if they didn't survive. Turkey calling in NATO as if it was attacked by the Soviets. It has a far better armed forces with modern weapons. So them calling in NATO makes me believe it was a staged to get the Syrians to attack and get a pretext.

 

[pmaitra]

At Turkey's request, NATO's governing body will meet Tuesday to discuss the incident, said Oana Lungescu, a NATO spokeswoman. The consultations were called under article 4 of NATO's founding Washington Treaty. "Under article 4, any ally can request consultations whenever, in the opinion of any of them, their territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened,'' Lungescu said.

Lungescu is acting the clown here. If anyone, it was Syrian territorial integrity and security that was threatened, by Turkey.

 

[pmaitra]

Turkey has now started changing its tune.

 

[asianobserve]

Were the Turkish Phantoms 'Teasing' Syrian Air Defenses for NATO's ELINT Collection? | Defense Update

 

[Payeng]

Syria shot at second plane, Turkey says

BBC News - Syria shot at second plane, Turkey says

 

[sukhish]

syria is a done deal. russia can only make it last for so long, after all they have to show that they are still a permanent member of the U.N. to preserve that seat, they have to do something. the real loser will be russia.

 

[pmaitra]

A Turkish Air Force search and rescue plane was shot at by Syrian air defences as it swept the skies over the Mediterranean looking for the wreckage of a F-4 Phantom fighter-jet shot down in the same area on Friday, Turkey's deputy prime minister said.

Syria ceased fire after a warning from the Turkish military and the plane was not hit, Bulent Arinc said.

The incident came as the European Union urged Turkey to show restraint as it ruled out support for any military retaliation by Ankara.

Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister, called for a political solution to the crisis, saying: "De-escalation is crucial at this moment."

His Dutch counterpart, Uri Rosenthal, added: "We don't go for any interventions."

But the more placatory tone that emerged from the EU meeting in Luxembourg suggested that Nato would only offer Turkey political support when the alliance's governing body convenes in Brussels on Tuesday.

Turkey accuses Syria of shooting at second military aircraft - Telegraph

 

[ejazr]

What Russia Gave Syria, a list of weapons being provided to keep Assad in power.

What Russia Gave Syria - By David Kenner | Foreign Policy

 

[Armand2REP]

 

[asianobserve]

Ammo cook off...That tank has no blow out panels... (learned from Damian :thumb

 

[pmaitra]

Syria: Is Assad really culpable, or is it NATO?

Syria: Is Assad really culpable, or is it NATO?

Here is an alternative view point. Headlines are listed below:

Revealed: CIA secretly operates on Syrian border, supplies arms to rebels

Syria: Christians fleeing to government areas from Sunni Islamic terrorist networks

Dead Al Qaeda/CIA/Mossad Terrorist calls on islamists to help mercenaries terrorists in Syria

West after military intervention in Syria: Webster Tarpley

Syria: Intl. probe into Houla, more persuasive

Syria: Reportage from Houla, Homs

Initial Report of Judicial Investigation Committee on al-Houla Massacre: Victims belonged to Peaceful Families who Refused to Stand up against State

Armed gangs in Syria are shifting their focus to capital, Damascus

'NATO behind Houla massacre'

Syria: Houla Massacres is a Divide & Conquer Strategy – Exposed


Read each report here: Nato mercenaries | CounterPsyOps

May be merged later with: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/west-asia-africa/31541-syrian-crisis.html

 

[pmaitra]

Re: Syria: Is Assad really culpable, or is it NATO?

Free Syria Army Now Led by NATO-Libya Al Qaeda Commander

Very interesting read.

Thierry Meyssan
Voltaire Net
December 20, 2011

In the wake of the "Arab Spring" and NATO interventions, both official and secret, Qatar seeks to impose Islamist leaders wherever possible. This strategy has led it not only to fund the Muslim Brotherhood and to hand Al-Jazeera over to them, but also to support Al Qaeda mercenaries, who will henceforth oversee the Free Syrian Army. However, this new scenario raises serious concerns in Israel and among the supporters of the "clash of civilizations."

The UN Security Council members are at loggerheads over the interpretation of the events that are rocking Syria. On one hand, France, the United Kingdom and the United States claim that a revolution has swept the country, in the aftermath of the "Arab Spring", and suffering a bloody crackdown. On the other hand, Russia's and China's take is that Syria is having to cope with armed gangs from abroad, which it is fighting awkwardly thereby causing collateral victims among the civilian population it seeks to protect.

The on-the-spot investigation undertaken by Voltaire Network validated the latter interpretation [1]. We have collected eyewitness testimonies from those who survived an armed attack by a foreign gangs. They describe them as being Iraqis, Jordanians or Libyans, recognizable by their accent, as well as Pashtun.

In recent months, a certain number of Arab newspapers, favorable to the Al-Assad administration, discussed the infiltration into Syria of 600 to 1,500 fighters from the Islamic Fighting Group in Libya (IFGL), rebranded Al Qaeda in Libya since November 2007. In late November 2011, the Libyan press reported the attempt by the Zintan militia to detain Abdel Hakim Belhaj, companion of Osama Bin Laden [2] and historic leader of Al Qaeda in Libya, who became military governor of Tripoli by the grace of NATO [3]. The scene took place at Tripoli airport, as he was leaving for Turkey. Finally, Turkish newspapers mentioned Mr. Belhaj's presence at the Turkish-Syrian.

Iriarte's testimony dovetails with what the Arab anti-Syrian press has been claiming for weeks: the Free Syrian Army is overseen by at least 600 "volunteers" from Al Qaeda in Libya [10]. The entire operation is run by Abdel Hakim Belhaj in person with the help of the Erdogan government.

Read full article: » Free Syria Army Now Led by NATO-Libya Al Qaeda Commander Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[pmaitra]

BBC News - Turkey seeks diplomacy not war

Turkey's decision to call a Nato meeting to discuss the downing of one of its warplanes by Syrian air defences is a measure of the seriousness of the current situation but it also sends a signal that, for now at least, Ankara is looking for a concerted diplomatic response rather than taking military action of its own.

 

[pmaitra]

BBC News - Why Russia is standing by Syria's Assad

As the United Nations warns that Syria has descended into civil war, Russia continues to back President Bashar al-Assad in the face of growing international condemnation.

Konstantin von Eggert, political commentator for Kommersant FM radio in Moscow, looks at why the Kremlin is steadfastly supporting the beleaguered Syrian government.

 

[asianobserve]

BBC News - Why Russia is standing by Syria's Assad

Another proof that Kremlin is desperately still trying to hang on to Cold War era...

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Re: Russia Planning of Delivering Yak-130 to Syria

The Evil of Humanitarian Wars | Dissident Voice

US and its allies are pursuing the same agenda as before the Arab Spring: that is, they are looking to preserve their own geo-political interests. In that regard, they are trying to contain and reverse dangerous manifestations of the awakening, especially in Egypt, the most populous and influential of the Arab states, and in the Gulf, our pipeline to the world's most abundant oil reserves.

But for Washington, the Arab Spring presented opportunities as well as threats, and these are being keenly exploited.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq followed a model of "intervention" that is now widely discredited and probably no longer viable for a West struggling with economic decline. It is not an easy sell to Western publics that our armies should single-handedly invade, occupy and "fix" Middle Eastern states, especially given how ungrateful the recipients of our largesse have proven to be.

Humanitarian wars might have run into the sand at this point had the Arab Spring not opened up new possibilities for "intervening".

The Arab awakening created a fresh set of dynamics in the Middle East that countered the dominance of the traditional military and political elites: democratic and Islamist forces were buoyed with new confidence; business elites spied domestic economic opportunities through collaboration with the West; and oppressed ethnic, religious and tribal groups saw a chance to settle old scores.

Not surprisingly, Washington has shown more interest in cultivating the latter two groups than the first.

In Libya, the US and its allies in Nato took off the white hat and handed it to the so-called rebels, comprising mostly tribes out of favour with Gadaffi. The West took a visible role, especially in its bombing sorties, but one that made sure the local actors were presented as in the driving seat. The West was only too happy to appear as if relegated to a minor role: enabling the good guys.

After Libya's outlaw, Muammar Gadaffi, was beaten to death by the rebels last year, the credits rolled. The movie was over for Western audiences. But for Libyans a new film began, in a language foreign to our ears and with no subtitles. What little information has seeped out since suggests that Libya is now mired in lawlessness, no better than the political waste lands we ourselves created in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hundreds of regional militias run the country, extorting, torturing and slaughtering those who oppose them.

Few can doubt that Syria is next on the West's hit list. And this time, the script-writers in Washington seem to believe that the task of turning a functioning, if highly repressive, state into a basket case can be achieved without the West's hand being visible at all. This time the white hat has been assigned to our allies, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, who, according to the latest reports, are stoking an incipient civil war not only by arming some among the rebels but also by preparing to pay them salaries too, in petro-dollars.

The importance to Western governments of developing more "complex" narratives about intervention has been driven by the need to weaken domestic opposition to continuing Middle East wars. The impression that these wars are being inspired and directed exclusively from "inside", even if by a heterogeneous opposition whose composition remains murky to outsiders, adds a degree of extra legitimacy; and additionally, it suggests to Western publics that that the cost in treasure and casualties will not be born by us.

Whereas there was a wide consensus in favour of attacking Afghanistan, Western opinion split, especially in Europe, over the question of invading Iraq in the same manner. In the post 9/11 world, the villain in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, seemed a more credible threat to Western interests than Saddam Hussein. The critics of Operation Shock and Awe were proven resoundingly right.

The Arab awakenings, however, provided a different storyline for subsequent Western intervention — one that Washington had tried weakly to advance in Iraq too, after Saddam's WMD could not be located. It was no longer about finding a doomsday person or weapon, but about a civilising mission to bring democracy to oppressed peoples.

In the era before the Arab Spring, this risked looking like just another ploy to promote Western interests. But afterwards, it seemed far more plausible. It mattered little whether the local actors were democratic elements seeking a new kind of politics or feuding ethnic groups seeking control of the old politics for their own, vengeful ends. The goal of the West was to co-opt them, willingly or not, to the new narrative.

This move effectively eroded popular opposition to the next humanitarian war, in Libya, and looks like it is already achieving the same end in Syria.

Certainly, it has fatally undermined effective dissent from the left, which has squabbled and splintered over each of these humanitarian wars. A number of leading leftwing intellectuals lined up behind the project to overthrow Gadaffi, and more of them are already applauding the same fate for Syria's Bashar Assad. There is now only a rump of critical leftwing opinion steadfast in its opposition to yet another attempt by the West to engineer an Arab state's implosion.

If this were simply a cowboy movie, none of this would be of more than incidental interest. Gadaffi was, and Assad is, an outlaw. But international politics is far more complex than a Hollywood script, as should be obvious if we paused for a moment to reflect on what kind of sheriffs we have elected and re-elected in the West. George Bush, Tony Blair and Barack Obama probably have more blood on their hands than any Arab autocrat.

Many on the left are struggling to analyse the new Middle East with anything approaching the sophistication of Washington's military planners. This failure derives in large part from a willingness to allow the war-merchants to blur the meaningful issues — on the regimes, the opposition groups and the media coverage — related to each "humanitarian intervention".

Yes, the regimes selected for destruction are uniformly brutal and ugly towards their own people. Yes, the nature of their rule should be denounced. Yes, the world would be better off without them. But this is no reason for the West to wage wars against them, at least not so long as the world continues to be configured the way it is into competing and self-interested nation states.

Nearly all states in the Middle East have appalling human rights records, some of them with even fewer redeeming features than Gadaffi's Libya or Assad's Syria. But then those states, such as Saudi Arabia, are close allies of the West. Only the terminally naïve or dishonest argue that the states targeted by the West have been selected for the benefit of their long-suffering citizens. Rather, they have been chosen because they are seen as implacably opposed to American and Israeli interests in the region.

 

[pmaitra]

Another proof that Kremlin is desperately still trying to hang on to Cold War era...

NATO should have been disbanded with the collapse of the USSR. That did not happen. I guess you can perceive what I am getting at.

 

[asianobserve]

Well the USSR lost that very cold war so it should have disbanded not only its empire but the idea of its failed empire. You don't ask the victor to bow down to the wishes of the loser?

 

[pmaitra]

Well the USSR lost that very cold war so it should have disbanded not only its empire but the idea of its failed empire. You don't ask the victor to bow down to the wishes of the loser?

Well, then, Russia is quite fair to not trust the NATO and its agenda, given that even after the collapse of the USSR, NATO continued to expand upto Russia's borders. Going by the same token, they are quite fair in doing whatever they deem necessary for their interests.

Now read your original comment before responding.

Another proof that Kremlin is desperately still trying to hang on to Cold War era...