pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,600
The Syrian Crisis
- Thread starter Someoneforyou
- Start date
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,600
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,600
Let's veto the West's moral posturing on Syria
Let's veto the West's moral posturing on Syria
There is more logic to Russia's and China's veto of the UN resolution condemning Assad than there is to William Hague's sixth-former antics.
The civilised world is incensed at Russia and China for vetoing a UN Security Council resolution condemning the Assad regime in Syria. Their behaviour is 'incomprehensible and inexcusable', says British PM David Cameron. Yet all this China-criticising, Russia-bashing posturing amongst Western leaders tells us rather more about their own political immaturity than it does about moral turpitude in the East. For all that Russia and China have done is act according to their geopolitical interests, to take a position grounded in realpolitik and policy considerations. That Western observers find such behaviour 'incomprehensible' reveals how far they themselves have become dangerously estranged from rational geopolitics.
You don't have to be a supporter of Russia's and China's veto (spiked isn't) to understand why they did what they did. The UN resolution condemned the Assad regime's use of extreme force against protesters and called for a 'Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system'. Both Russia and China have fairly deep political and business relations with Assad-ruled Syria and they clearly decided, through a process of interest-driven foreign policy-making, that it would be potentially destabilising for Syria's rulers, and by extension for them, if international pressure were put on Syria to undergo regime change. Chinese officials have said that they don't support Assad himself, and are critical of his recent actions, but they felt the UN resolution was rushed, with a vote being forced 'despite serious differences', and so they vetoed.
Yet listening to US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and British foreign secretary William Hague, and perusing the media coverage of Russia's and China's behaviour, you could be forgiven for thinking that they had invaded Syria and actually joined in the Assad regime's bombing of Homs and other cities. Sounding like a sixth-former who has just signed up to Amnesty International, Hague accused Russia and China of having 'blood on their hands'. 'How many more [Syrians] need to die before Russia and China allow the UN Security Council to act?' he cried. Clinton described Russia's and China's veto as a 'travesty' and said they now 'bear responsibility for the horrors that are occurring on the ground in Syria'. Likewise, French foreign minister Alain Juppe said they bear 'grave historical responsibility' for the bloodshed in Syria.
Read complete article here: Let's veto the West's moral posturing on Syria | Brendan O'Neill | spiked
To be merged later with: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/west-asia-africa/31541-syrian-crisis.html
Let's veto the West's moral posturing on Syria
There is more logic to Russia's and China's veto of the UN resolution condemning Assad than there is to William Hague's sixth-former antics.
The civilised world is incensed at Russia and China for vetoing a UN Security Council resolution condemning the Assad regime in Syria. Their behaviour is 'incomprehensible and inexcusable', says British PM David Cameron. Yet all this China-criticising, Russia-bashing posturing amongst Western leaders tells us rather more about their own political immaturity than it does about moral turpitude in the East. For all that Russia and China have done is act according to their geopolitical interests, to take a position grounded in realpolitik and policy considerations. That Western observers find such behaviour 'incomprehensible' reveals how far they themselves have become dangerously estranged from rational geopolitics.
You don't have to be a supporter of Russia's and China's veto (spiked isn't) to understand why they did what they did. The UN resolution condemned the Assad regime's use of extreme force against protesters and called for a 'Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system'. Both Russia and China have fairly deep political and business relations with Assad-ruled Syria and they clearly decided, through a process of interest-driven foreign policy-making, that it would be potentially destabilising for Syria's rulers, and by extension for them, if international pressure were put on Syria to undergo regime change. Chinese officials have said that they don't support Assad himself, and are critical of his recent actions, but they felt the UN resolution was rushed, with a vote being forced 'despite serious differences', and so they vetoed.
Yet listening to US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and British foreign secretary William Hague, and perusing the media coverage of Russia's and China's behaviour, you could be forgiven for thinking that they had invaded Syria and actually joined in the Assad regime's bombing of Homs and other cities. Sounding like a sixth-former who has just signed up to Amnesty International, Hague accused Russia and China of having 'blood on their hands'. 'How many more [Syrians] need to die before Russia and China allow the UN Security Council to act?' he cried. Clinton described Russia's and China's veto as a 'travesty' and said they now 'bear responsibility for the horrors that are occurring on the ground in Syria'. Likewise, French foreign minister Alain Juppe said they bear 'grave historical responsibility' for the bloodshed in Syria.
Read complete article here: Let's veto the West's moral posturing on Syria | Brendan O'Neill | spiked
To be merged later with: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/west-asia-africa/31541-syrian-crisis.html
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,600
Bomb Syria so that I can sleep at night
Bomb Syria so that I can sleep at night
Brendan O'Neill
The most shocking thing about the intervene-in-Syria lobby is not its historical amnesia over Iraq and Afghanistan, but its naked narcissism.
Failed Canadian politician Michael Ignatieff recently made waves with an op-ed in the Financial Times calling for Western intervention in Syria. Revisiting some of the themes of his 1990s writings (Ignatieff made a living championing 'humanitarian interventionism' before he led Canada's Liberal Party to its worst electoral defeat ever), Igantieff said the West should impose a 'comprehensive quarantine of Syria' in order to 'force [Assad] from power'.
Yet the most startling thing about his piece was not its extreme short-term historical amnesia, its ignorance of the disasters unleashed in Iraq and Afghanistan following Western meddling, but rather its exhibition of self-regard and self-concern, even of that most malignant form of self-love: narcissism. Ignatieff mentioned his own feelings about what is happening in Homs six times and the possible feelings of the people of Homs themselves only three times. His short op-ed mainly focused on the 'guilt' and 'shame' felt by people like Igantieff - that is, Western observers possessed of a good, caring, Sarajevo-informed 'international conscience' - while the 'fear' and 'desperation' of the people of Homs were given far briefer treatment.
This ratio of 2:1 between Ignatieff's feelings of guilt and Syrians' feelings of desperation not only suggests that modern Western interventionists are two times more obsessed with themselves than they are with the victims of foreign conflicts they claim to care so much about - it also reveals that what is really motoring the demands for Western intervention in Syria are the emotional needs of Western observers rather than the practical needs of Syrians. This kind of narcissism is now widespread among those who desperately want the 'international community' to intervene in Syria. These people are so amazingly vain that they see the bombing of Syria as a kind of balm for their guilt-ridden consciences, a physical act that might help to make their own emotional turmoil that bit more bearable. Their rallying cry should be: 'Bomb Syria so that I can sleep at night.'
Read the complete article here: Bomb Syria so that I can sleep at night | Brendan O'Neill | spiked
To be merged later with: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/west-asia-africa/31541-syrian-crisis.html
Bomb Syria so that I can sleep at night
Brendan O'Neill
The most shocking thing about the intervene-in-Syria lobby is not its historical amnesia over Iraq and Afghanistan, but its naked narcissism.
Failed Canadian politician Michael Ignatieff recently made waves with an op-ed in the Financial Times calling for Western intervention in Syria. Revisiting some of the themes of his 1990s writings (Ignatieff made a living championing 'humanitarian interventionism' before he led Canada's Liberal Party to its worst electoral defeat ever), Igantieff said the West should impose a 'comprehensive quarantine of Syria' in order to 'force [Assad] from power'.
Yet the most startling thing about his piece was not its extreme short-term historical amnesia, its ignorance of the disasters unleashed in Iraq and Afghanistan following Western meddling, but rather its exhibition of self-regard and self-concern, even of that most malignant form of self-love: narcissism. Ignatieff mentioned his own feelings about what is happening in Homs six times and the possible feelings of the people of Homs themselves only three times. His short op-ed mainly focused on the 'guilt' and 'shame' felt by people like Igantieff - that is, Western observers possessed of a good, caring, Sarajevo-informed 'international conscience' - while the 'fear' and 'desperation' of the people of Homs were given far briefer treatment.
This ratio of 2:1 between Ignatieff's feelings of guilt and Syrians' feelings of desperation not only suggests that modern Western interventionists are two times more obsessed with themselves than they are with the victims of foreign conflicts they claim to care so much about - it also reveals that what is really motoring the demands for Western intervention in Syria are the emotional needs of Western observers rather than the practical needs of Syrians. This kind of narcissism is now widespread among those who desperately want the 'international community' to intervene in Syria. These people are so amazingly vain that they see the bombing of Syria as a kind of balm for their guilt-ridden consciences, a physical act that might help to make their own emotional turmoil that bit more bearable. Their rallying cry should be: 'Bomb Syria so that I can sleep at night.'
Read the complete article here: Bomb Syria so that I can sleep at night | Brendan O'Neill | spiked
To be merged later with: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/west-asia-africa/31541-syrian-crisis.html
Re: Let's veto the West's moral posturing on Syria
And who will challenge that?-morally bankrupt and corrupt India or China or Russia.ITs just a power game and should be taken as such.Syria is last standing pivot of Russia or former USSR.Thats why Russia is making all out efforts to save it.
And who will challenge that?-morally bankrupt and corrupt India or China or Russia.ITs just a power game and should be taken as such.Syria is last standing pivot of Russia or former USSR.Thats why Russia is making all out efforts to save it.
amoy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 5,982
- Likes
- 1,849
IMO, at this moment Al Assad has become merely a figurehead, to a degree, for wide-ranging backing forces behind. In case he steps down the regime simply lacks another core leader to hold different factions / vested interests together in fighting the rebels, and ability of Assad's camp (and Russia) would possibly be weakened to negotiate favourable terms for the future political structure. The regime may even risk crumbling from within.
What the US wants is not simply exit of a person.
@pmaitra
Agree with most of what you said but just want to make the following two points
(1) Assad can't seriously be taken as the elected representative of the syrian people. He is as elected as Mubarak in Egypt or Gaddafi in Libya was. But ofcourse that doesn't mean there is no support to Assad. At the same time, there is genuine resentment and oppostion to Assad because of the dynastic rule and detriorating political climate.
(2) The shia-sunni divide has little impact on Indian foreign policy calculations. As I have explained earlier, the divide or support and oppostion among Arab or infact all countries in the world can be seen in the light of Cold War leanings. So GCC states most of which became independant in the 70s, Iran under Shah, Turkey were allied to the US and western security bloc and hence averse to India. On the other hand, Soviet leaning states like Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser as well as Afghanistan and the CAR republics had good relations with India. This framework of the cold war provides a better way to understand historic relations with India particulary starting with the 70s. Also, our terrorism problem is pretty much a Pakistani restricted issue unlike US which is affected by Arab (increasingly Pakistani as well) or Israel which is affected by Arab and indirectly Iranian support to Arab militant groups like the shia Hezbulla and sunni HAMAS.
After the Islamic revolution in Iran, an ideological political Islamist govt. based on shia theology took power. It continues to be the only Muslim country in the world that has a cleric as the head of state. But for India in the 80s and 90s, this meant that Iran would move away from US allies - Pakistan, Turkey, GCC states and align with Russia and India which is what happened.
Now with the end of the USSR and a complete revamp of Indian foreign policy and shedding of cold war history, a new relationship paradigm has been developed. Starting with PV Rao, then NDA and finally the UPA regimes. Existing relations with countries like Iran, Iraq e.t.c. were sought to be maintained, while new relationships were opened mainly with the US and its allies like Israel and GCC states. Now relations with GCC / Israel are quite advanced and infact we have some of the heaviest diplomatic traffic with the GCC region. Every month there is some official either from GCC states visiting India or vice versa.
During the last 10 years, we have Saddam Husseing was ousted in Iraq completely removing any former state relations we had with the left leaning regime there. Sanctions on Iran and the IAEA votes have also affected relations there. But all of this was done under the pressure of the US/Israel/GCC combine which like it or not has started to play a bigger role in Indian foreign policy considerations than Iran or Iraq could. And its because the US/Israel/GCC combine has been collectively able to help India more on the economic, security and strategic fronts than other countries. Now while Iran does provide a crucial oil supply and connection to CARs route which is why India has ploughed into Iran despite sanctions, Syria at present can't provide any benefit as such. And India alone can't provide any help to have a material change there.
On the issue that AQ is fighting in Syria, I think that could actually happen in the future but it would serve Assad's propaganda purpose to potray AQ fighters among the rebels. Not the original AQ of the OBL led front but those who follow the ideology i.e. use of suicide bombings and goal to establish a Taliban like state. At present, none of these things are happening, the Free Syrian Army consists of some pious muslims, but they don't use sucide bombings as a tactic. The Syrian National Council for example has already started to get dominated by more extreme leaders as moderates are being marginalised as the conflict goes on. And its possible that if the civil war is not resolved quickly, then more extreme leaders will dominate as happens in any conflict. In places where there were peaceful protests and removal of govt.s like Tunisia or Egypt, the AQ elements were completely sidelined. Where there were some conflicts like Libya and Yemen, there was marginal presence of AQ affiliated fighters but still a small percentage of the overall rebels. Syria is kind of in that same situation.
The West in general and the US - even Israel in particular are not averse in working with political Islamists when it serves their purpose. For example, it was covert support to HAMAS in Palestine to under the left leaning secular PLO that ended up causing problems for them 10 years later. There was the same scenarios in Afghanistan.
But anyways, the main question is what would India's position be? If we wanted to "support" Assad, what would our support be? And what direct benefit would we get other than restoring faith in "friendship"? I don't see our ability to do anything that can materially change Assad's position like sending military equipment. Not least because that would be going opposite to the US/GCC/Israel policy in the region. We already have our hands full defending our Iranian relations.
Like I said, its a difficult situation, I personally don't have an opinion one way or another and maybe its one of those situations where you just do nothing.
Agree with most of what you said but just want to make the following two points
(1) Assad can't seriously be taken as the elected representative of the syrian people. He is as elected as Mubarak in Egypt or Gaddafi in Libya was. But ofcourse that doesn't mean there is no support to Assad. At the same time, there is genuine resentment and oppostion to Assad because of the dynastic rule and detriorating political climate.
(2) The shia-sunni divide has little impact on Indian foreign policy calculations. As I have explained earlier, the divide or support and oppostion among Arab or infact all countries in the world can be seen in the light of Cold War leanings. So GCC states most of which became independant in the 70s, Iran under Shah, Turkey were allied to the US and western security bloc and hence averse to India. On the other hand, Soviet leaning states like Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser as well as Afghanistan and the CAR republics had good relations with India. This framework of the cold war provides a better way to understand historic relations with India particulary starting with the 70s. Also, our terrorism problem is pretty much a Pakistani restricted issue unlike US which is affected by Arab (increasingly Pakistani as well) or Israel which is affected by Arab and indirectly Iranian support to Arab militant groups like the shia Hezbulla and sunni HAMAS.
After the Islamic revolution in Iran, an ideological political Islamist govt. based on shia theology took power. It continues to be the only Muslim country in the world that has a cleric as the head of state. But for India in the 80s and 90s, this meant that Iran would move away from US allies - Pakistan, Turkey, GCC states and align with Russia and India which is what happened.
Now with the end of the USSR and a complete revamp of Indian foreign policy and shedding of cold war history, a new relationship paradigm has been developed. Starting with PV Rao, then NDA and finally the UPA regimes. Existing relations with countries like Iran, Iraq e.t.c. were sought to be maintained, while new relationships were opened mainly with the US and its allies like Israel and GCC states. Now relations with GCC / Israel are quite advanced and infact we have some of the heaviest diplomatic traffic with the GCC region. Every month there is some official either from GCC states visiting India or vice versa.
During the last 10 years, we have Saddam Husseing was ousted in Iraq completely removing any former state relations we had with the left leaning regime there. Sanctions on Iran and the IAEA votes have also affected relations there. But all of this was done under the pressure of the US/Israel/GCC combine which like it or not has started to play a bigger role in Indian foreign policy considerations than Iran or Iraq could. And its because the US/Israel/GCC combine has been collectively able to help India more on the economic, security and strategic fronts than other countries. Now while Iran does provide a crucial oil supply and connection to CARs route which is why India has ploughed into Iran despite sanctions, Syria at present can't provide any benefit as such. And India alone can't provide any help to have a material change there.
On the issue that AQ is fighting in Syria, I think that could actually happen in the future but it would serve Assad's propaganda purpose to potray AQ fighters among the rebels. Not the original AQ of the OBL led front but those who follow the ideology i.e. use of suicide bombings and goal to establish a Taliban like state. At present, none of these things are happening, the Free Syrian Army consists of some pious muslims, but they don't use sucide bombings as a tactic. The Syrian National Council for example has already started to get dominated by more extreme leaders as moderates are being marginalised as the conflict goes on. And its possible that if the civil war is not resolved quickly, then more extreme leaders will dominate as happens in any conflict. In places where there were peaceful protests and removal of govt.s like Tunisia or Egypt, the AQ elements were completely sidelined. Where there were some conflicts like Libya and Yemen, there was marginal presence of AQ affiliated fighters but still a small percentage of the overall rebels. Syria is kind of in that same situation.
The West in general and the US - even Israel in particular are not averse in working with political Islamists when it serves their purpose. For example, it was covert support to HAMAS in Palestine to under the left leaning secular PLO that ended up causing problems for them 10 years later. There was the same scenarios in Afghanistan.
But anyways, the main question is what would India's position be? If we wanted to "support" Assad, what would our support be? And what direct benefit would we get other than restoring faith in "friendship"? I don't see our ability to do anything that can materially change Assad's position like sending military equipment. Not least because that would be going opposite to the US/GCC/Israel policy in the region. We already have our hands full defending our Iranian relations.
Like I said, its a difficult situation, I personally don't have an opinion one way or another and maybe its one of those situations where you just do nothing.
Last edited:
IBSA
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,158
- Likes
- 1,613
Re: Let's veto the West's moral posturing on Syria
The author is not saying Russia, China or India are morally upper, but that they defends their interests on Syria in a cold, gaping and selfish way, instead of hide out their aims behind moral posture as the West does.
This West's moral posture is what the text criticizes. According him, this posture is hypocrisy or blindness, lunatic.
It would be hypocrisy because the West were approaching toward Assad, and called him as 'reformer' in 2009, when it changed overnight and elected Assad as a 'villain'. Why this posture's change toward Assad? Did was Assad who changed for a murderer overnight? Sure not, Assad's government had been a tyranny already that time. In this case, the West would be as Assad's crimes' accomplice as Russia and China are now? Then, why the West criticizes Russia and China now? Hypocrisy.
Or it would be West's blindness and stupidity in case it didn't learn the Iraq War lessons, and remains thinking that is possible to carry out the democracy for Syria by airstrikes too.
The author is not saying Russia, China or India are morally upper, but that they defends their interests on Syria in a cold, gaping and selfish way, instead of hide out their aims behind moral posture as the West does.
This West's moral posture is what the text criticizes. According him, this posture is hypocrisy or blindness, lunatic.
It would be hypocrisy because the West were approaching toward Assad, and called him as 'reformer' in 2009, when it changed overnight and elected Assad as a 'villain'. Why this posture's change toward Assad? Did was Assad who changed for a murderer overnight? Sure not, Assad's government had been a tyranny already that time. In this case, the West would be as Assad's crimes' accomplice as Russia and China are now? Then, why the West criticizes Russia and China now? Hypocrisy.
Or it would be West's blindness and stupidity in case it didn't learn the Iraq War lessons, and remains thinking that is possible to carry out the democracy for Syria by airstrikes too.
IBSA
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,158
- Likes
- 1,613
Re: Bomb Syria so that I can sleep at night
It is a stupidity without measures to compare Syria's conflict today as the Bosnia War on '92.
Firstly, Syria has a stronger army than Serbia
Secondly, in 1992 Russia was immerse in a crisis after USSR end and couldn't support him ally. Today Russian power was restored and they can give Syria all that they needs.
Will be a great mistake if West thinks an attack against Syria shall repeat the same results of Bosnia.
It is a stupidity without measures to compare Syria's conflict today as the Bosnia War on '92.
Firstly, Syria has a stronger army than Serbia
Secondly, in 1992 Russia was immerse in a crisis after USSR end and couldn't support him ally. Today Russian power was restored and they can give Syria all that they needs.
Will be a great mistake if West thinks an attack against Syria shall repeat the same results of Bosnia.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 13,811
- Likes
- 6,734
Report: Russia involved in downing of Turkish jet
Diplomatic sources say Russian technicians at Syria's missile battery control centers played key role in interception and shooting down of Turkey's F-4E Phantom II
Russian technicians played a key part in the interception and shooting down of a Turkish warplane by Syria's anti-aircraft defenses 10 days ago, Britain's Sunday Times reported Sunday. Diplomatic sources in the Middle East told the paper that destroying the F-4E Phantom II was a split-second decision intended as a warning to NATO to stay out of Syria's civil war.
A source in Israel's Air Force was quoted as saying "we would not be surprised if these Russian experts, if they didn't push the button, at least were beside the Syrian officers who did it."
The downing of the plane pushed Ankara closer to military intervention in Syria as Turkish troops and tanks were deployed near the border with Syria. Damascus responded by sending two tank brigades to the border.
A long-standing client of the old Soviet Union, Syria has acquired sophisticated air defenses from Moscow over the past four decades and is seen as President Vladimir Putin's last friend in the Arab world, opposition sources say.
An international conference held in Geneva Saturday accepted a UN-brokered peace plan for Syria, but saw Russia and China still supporting President Bashar Assad.
The US was forced to back away from demands that Assad be excluded, hoping the concession would encourage Russia to put greater pressure on its longtime ally to end the violent crackdown that the opposition says has claimed over 14,000 lives.
"It definitely has Russian fingerprints on it," a diplomat told the Sunday Times. He summarized the Russian message: "Syria is not Libya and any attempt to impose a 'no fly zone' over Syria will face one of the most formidable air defenses on Earth and will cost any attacker dearly."
Three years ago Russia supplied Syria with the advanced Pantsir-S1 (SA 22 Greyhound), with 36 launchers, according to the report. Russian specialists are believed to have trained the Syrians and diplomats say some are still stationed at the missile battery control centers.
Report: Russia involved in downing of Turkish jet - Israel News, Ynetnews
Diplomatic sources say Russian technicians at Syria's missile battery control centers played key role in interception and shooting down of Turkey's F-4E Phantom II
Russian technicians played a key part in the interception and shooting down of a Turkish warplane by Syria's anti-aircraft defenses 10 days ago, Britain's Sunday Times reported Sunday. Diplomatic sources in the Middle East told the paper that destroying the F-4E Phantom II was a split-second decision intended as a warning to NATO to stay out of Syria's civil war.
A source in Israel's Air Force was quoted as saying "we would not be surprised if these Russian experts, if they didn't push the button, at least were beside the Syrian officers who did it."
The downing of the plane pushed Ankara closer to military intervention in Syria as Turkish troops and tanks were deployed near the border with Syria. Damascus responded by sending two tank brigades to the border.
A long-standing client of the old Soviet Union, Syria has acquired sophisticated air defenses from Moscow over the past four decades and is seen as President Vladimir Putin's last friend in the Arab world, opposition sources say.
An international conference held in Geneva Saturday accepted a UN-brokered peace plan for Syria, but saw Russia and China still supporting President Bashar Assad.
The US was forced to back away from demands that Assad be excluded, hoping the concession would encourage Russia to put greater pressure on its longtime ally to end the violent crackdown that the opposition says has claimed over 14,000 lives.
"It definitely has Russian fingerprints on it," a diplomat told the Sunday Times. He summarized the Russian message: "Syria is not Libya and any attempt to impose a 'no fly zone' over Syria will face one of the most formidable air defenses on Earth and will cost any attacker dearly."
Three years ago Russia supplied Syria with the advanced Pantsir-S1 (SA 22 Greyhound), with 36 launchers, according to the report. Russian specialists are believed to have trained the Syrians and diplomats say some are still stationed at the missile battery control centers.
Report: Russia involved in downing of Turkish jet - Israel News, Ynetnews
no smoking
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2009
- Messages
- 5,057
- Likes
- 2,353
Re: Bomb Syria so that I can sleep at night
I just wonder how much facts have been twisted or hide by western media.
For example, where did rebel get their hands on that quantity of weapons which make them capable of fighting for half year.
Obviously, not some donation from human right groups!
I just wonder how much facts have been twisted or hide by western media.
For example, where did rebel get their hands on that quantity of weapons which make them capable of fighting for half year.
Obviously, not some donation from human right groups!
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,600
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,600
Thank you and yes, I agree with most of what you said. I just have a few comments to further explore what you have written.
Of course one may not take Assad's election seriously. That is a valid point. However, the rebels have even less credibility than Assad. It still befuddles me how some rebel-sympathizers keep harping on the need for Assad to step down, on the grounds of his suspect elections. The other argument (which is sounding a bit overused since the days or Iraq Invasion, and recently Libya invasion), is that "he is killing his own people;" as if the rebels are not doing the same thing.
So now, the question arises, what is the solution? To me, the Russian proposal to have a power sharing agreement is best. It is the fairest of all the solutions one can find. This is, however, a postponement of the bloodshed. What has to happen, will happen. I'd rather one side won a decisive victory. Let peace and calm return after a few violent weeks. This is better than bleeding for years.
Just my opinion.
Cold War is still alive. Had the NATO not expanded up to the borders of Russia, had NATO not reneged on the promise made to Gorbachev, had NATO not invaded Yugoslavia, to name a few events, Russia wouldn't have been so suspicious of NATO. The Russian-Georgian War clearly demonstrated that Russia will not back down if push comes to shove. It's high time the West realized this, methinks.
Thanks for the information. Although correct, it does not in any way elevate or lower Iran's standing in the world. That Iran's head of state is a cleric, should never be used as an argument to justify antagonizing Iran, or promoting a regime change there. I see this as a non-sequitur.
If at all, there is need for a regime change in KSA. Arabia needs to be liberated from the Kindgom of Saudi Arabia, which is more of a fiefdom of the Saud Family, hiding behind the false frontage of Islam, while financing Wahhabi Fundamentalism all over the world, who are not only attacking non-Muslims, spreading venom against Jews (Quran translations from KSA), but also instigating assaults on Sufi shrines.
(I am not going to be naïve about the recent extraditions by KSA)
You are absolutely correct, from the Indian point of view. From a neutral point of view, I still believe, both Assad and Rebels being at fault, Assad is still purer of the two.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,558
Syria crisis: Assad regrets downing of Turkish jet - live updates | World news | guardian.co.uk
Assad fell into Turkish trap...
Assad fell into Turkish trap...
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,600
Not quite.Syria crisis: Assad regrets downing of Turkish jet - live updates | World news | guardian.co.uk
Assad fell into Turkish trap...
I think Assad is playing a good game of showing the world that Syria is not seeking war with Turkey. Turkey was already struggling NATO to get involved. Now, Turkey's position is further weakened. Now Syria has taken away the casus belli for any action by Turkey. If they persist with their rhetoric, they will only show the world their warmongering side.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 13,811
- Likes
- 6,734
Syria can't afford a war with Turkey, not before and especially not now. He is so desperate he has to change his tune.
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,600
Syria definitely cannot afford a war with Turkey, however, this message by Assad was more for international consumption than anything else. It was extremely necessary for Syria to shoot down that Turkish jet, so that the message goes out that any attempt to enforce a no-fly zone will be difficult. Act with deliberation, and talk sweet in front of the press, is the strategy of Assad, apparently.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 13,811
- Likes
- 6,734
Syrian army 'haemorrhaging' troops to Turkey
Thomas Seibert
Jul 4, 2012
ISTANBUL // The Syrian army is haemorrhaging troops at an increasing rate, eroding an institution vital to president Bashar Al Assad's hold on power.
Defections from the Syrian military are becoming more numerous and organised, with many defectors fleeing to Turkey together with their families, a Turkish government official said yesterday.
About 85 Syrian soldiers, including a general, had sought refuge in Turkey on Monday with a total of 208 family members, said the official, making it the biggest group of soldiers to defect to Turkey since the uprising against the Syrian regime began in March 2011.
According to an estimate by Turkish government officials, about 60,000 members of the Syrian security forces have defected so far, and several hundred have come to Turkey.
Fevzi Zakiroglu, a spokesman for the Syrian National Council (SNC), said the defections were a sign the Al Assad regime was "dissolving", but a Turkish analyst cautioned that defections, while on the rise, had yet to constitute a mortal threat to the Syrian president's rule.
Syrian army 'haemorrhaging' troops to Turkey - The National
Thomas Seibert
Jul 4, 2012
ISTANBUL // The Syrian army is haemorrhaging troops at an increasing rate, eroding an institution vital to president Bashar Al Assad's hold on power.
Defections from the Syrian military are becoming more numerous and organised, with many defectors fleeing to Turkey together with their families, a Turkish government official said yesterday.
About 85 Syrian soldiers, including a general, had sought refuge in Turkey on Monday with a total of 208 family members, said the official, making it the biggest group of soldiers to defect to Turkey since the uprising against the Syrian regime began in March 2011.
According to an estimate by Turkish government officials, about 60,000 members of the Syrian security forces have defected so far, and several hundred have come to Turkey.
Fevzi Zakiroglu, a spokesman for the Syrian National Council (SNC), said the defections were a sign the Al Assad regime was "dissolving", but a Turkish analyst cautioned that defections, while on the rise, had yet to constitute a mortal threat to the Syrian president's rule.
Syrian army 'haemorrhaging' troops to Turkey - The National
