Syrian residents say they're bracing for full-blown war

[News Feed]

Fear and horror paralyzed residents in the Syrian city of Homs Tuesday, with snipers preventing anyone from moving and heavy shelling blasting through the air, opposition activists said.

Continue reading...

 

[redrumloa]

topper

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

If it actually suppresses the insurrection then war will be averted. But the west wants war so will continue supplying support to the "rebels" - no matter what horrors they commit - they are just doing Libya/Kosovo again.

 

[Glaucus]

And if Assad were to actually resign then war will be averted. But the Eastern powers like Russia and China want war so will continue supplying support to Assad's "police" forces - no matter what horrors they commit - they are just doing Georgia/Chechnya again.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

But the Eastern powers like Russia and China want war so will continue supplying support to Assad's "police" forces - no matter what horrors they commit - they are just doing Georgia/Chechnya again.

Russia doesn't want a war because it would be bad for them. They would likely lose Syria. The West wants a war because they could likely win but even if they don't they can make Russia lose Syria. Generally the people that want war are the ones who have overwhelming forces and something to gain. Russia is not very strong and has only things to lose.

 

[Glaucus]

Russia wants war because that's the only way to save Syria. Not war with it's neighbors, but war with it's own people. Like you said in your first post, Syria would need to crush the opposition, and by that, they'd need to kill them and they'd need to kill quite a number of them. That's war Fluffy, unless of course none of that counts when Americans or Israelis aren't the ones pulling the trigger.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Russia wants war because that's the only way to save Syria.

No, Russia does not want a war because that will be used by the security council to launch an action against Assad.

Like you said in your first post, Syria would need to crush the opposition, and by that, they'd need to kill them and they'd need to kill quite a number of them.

The opposition is actually quite small. If you can get to the heads and cut off the money - yes, some CIA assets would need to be incapacitated too which could be delicate but mostly the west is working through terrorist groups and disgruntled formerly leading families, as they usually do.

That's war Fluffy, unless of course none of that counts when Americans or Israelis aren't the ones pulling the trigger.

That is civil war and under international law (at least as written though not currently practiced) is no business of other states. Under civil war the Russians could continue to negotiate with both sides to maintain their interests in Syria. However, under a US backed coup (with US or European military resources) the new installed regime will once again be a western globalist regime ready to part out the country to western corporations and banks just as they did with Libya and with Iraq.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

And if Assad were to actually resign then war will be averted. But the Eastern powers like Russia and China want war so will continue supplying support to Assad's "police" forces - no matter what horrors they commit - they are just doing Georgia/Chechnya again.

Maybe the rebels should stop bombing people and shooting people too. Russia and China aren't backing those guys.

Meanwhile in Bahrain the people are marching on the square again. Will we turn a blind eye once more as Saudi Arabian troops shoot at the protesters in Bahrain again on behalf of the King of Bahrain? We feed the fire where it suites us and more people will die from our help than would die if we just left well enough alone.

The NATO bombing of Libya killed thousands of civilians and destroyed hospitals and schools and sanitation. The IMF took over the sovereign bank of Libya effectively confiscating the wealth of the country and turning it into loans to fix the damage that NATO caused. This is all part of a game. People aren't becoming free, they are just being brought into the western system of "freedom"(TM) - it's not the same as freedom.

 

[Fade]

Some Fluff:
"This is all part of a game. People aren't becoming free, they are just being brought into the western system of "freedom"(TM) - it's not the same as freedom."
----------------------------------------

So you think those 7,000 dead protesters in Syria were paid to commit suicide by exactly who?

 

[Glaucus]

No, Russia does not want a war because that will be used by the security council to launch an action against Assad.

Not sure which reality you're prescribing to at the moment, but last time I checked Russia has a veto power in the UN security council. Seems to me that's all they'd need to do. And oh my, they already did do just that.

The opposition is actually quite small. If you can get to the heads and cut off the money - yes, some CIA assets would need to be incapacitated too which could be delicate but mostly the west is working through terrorist groups and disgruntled formerly leading families, as they usually do.

Oh, I was waiting for that. I'm certainly not going to argue that there is no CIA involvement in Syria. But I will say that it's probably no where near as influential as you may like to suggest. I think we're seeing a lot of grass root efforts at work in Syria as well as many other nations in the region. The fact of the matter is that a lot of blood has now been spilled, Syria is now torn in two and people aren't gonna just forgive and forget. It doesn't really matter at this point who lit the first match, once a fire starts ragging it has a life of it's own. Weapons in that region are amazingly common and the "rebels" as you call them have managed to source a number of Syrian military equipment - which is typical of all insurgents. And since Syria has been wise to avoid using aircraft mostly to avoid a no-fly zone, that decision also gives the "rebels" a greater fighting chance. So ya, I can see them putting in a good fight without significant outside help.

That is civil war and under international law (at least as written though not currently practiced) is no business of other states.

Is that so? Then I guess you must have been pretty angry at Russia when they decided to invade and occupy North Ossetia, after all that was in internal conflict between Georgians. Or when Putin sent troops into Chechnya to bring them back under Kremlin control. Or do you just like to give the Russians a free pass because they're not the US or Israel?

Under civil war the Russians could continue to negotiate with both sides to maintain their interests in Syria. However, under a US backed coup (with US or European military resources) the new installed regime will once again be a western globalist regime ready to part out the country to western corporations and banks just as they did with Libya and with Iraq.

That's funny, you say that as if Syria isn't already bought and paid for by foreign powers. Like you said, Russia does have serious interests in Syria. They invested billions in infrastructure and are developing a natural gas plant. They're probably worried that their close relationship with Assad will backfire. I think no matter how you spin it, Syria will be catering to foreigners. The question is, under which system would the people suffer the least?

And let's face it, Iran is likely to become very incapable of aiding Syria soon. Meaning, Syria will be all on it's own in the Middle East. Russia will do what they can, but eventually even they will probably decide it's probably best to let go. Syria is on a path of change, it's really just a matter of how many people will die for that change.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Oh, I was waiting for that. I'm certainly not going to argue that there is no CIA involvement in Syria. But I will say that it's probably no where near as influential as you may like to suggest. I think we're seeing a lot of grass root efforts at work in Syria as well as many other nations in the region.

Yup - there are grass roots on the street - being egged on by us and likely being led to believe that NATO will back them up - but for now it's good that they are on the streets getting killed - it works for us and they can get madder and madder about it building up a list of martyrs. (This is normal destabilization - don't you find it feels so familiar?)

The fact of the matter is that a lot of blood has now been spilled, Syria is now torn in two and people aren't gonna just forgive and forget.

The goal of western action (and a general strategy going back more than a thousand years) is simply to break the society. Once they cannot govern themselves and form a coherent force because of distrust, infighting and recriminations then they will be in no state to resist a government imposed from outside, though these outside governments are usually administered by someone of local prestige such as an ex-prince, or by some seemingly elected quislings. Once some government is formed the people will often submit because they are tired of the fighting. None of this is new - the principles are as old as civilization. We just don't like to think that people can be so cold blooded - which is why they always win: because we can't believe that people would do such a thing.

Then I guess you must have been pretty angry at Russia when they decided to invade and occupy North Ossetia, after all that was in internal conflict between Georgians.

That's not so clear cut. Chechnya is much more so and I can fully agree with you on that. Of course, the west was more upset about Ossetia because they own Georgia and using that as a base to chip away at Russia was set back by that little episode. The west hardly made complaint at all about Chechnya because Russia was beating up on Muslims - and it distracted Russia from other ventures.

 

[Glaucus]

You know Fluffy, I'm a little disturbed by your stance on this. I always thought that you at the very least stood up for the little guy. Yet here you are standing up for the "man", the dictator Assad.

When protests here in Canada got out of control you blamed police infiltrators for instigating violence, because we all know, protesters are peaceful and they want a change for the better. Fair enough, but for some reason, protesters in Syria are horrific murderers and are all CIA stooges. WTF?!? And say what you want about Canadian police brutality, but have they ever used tanks and snipers to squash a protest? You know when we talk about the Israeli - Palestinian issue it's always important to go back to the roots because it's important to note that it's the Palestinians who had their land stolen and continue to have their land stolen. They are clearly fighting for their land and freedom (not to mention basic human rights), they're not just a bunch of terrorists that commit horrific murder for the heck of it. And with this Syrian uprising, isn't it important to note that the Syrian protests started off peacefully? It was NOT the protesters that fired the first shot, it was the protesters that were the first victims. The reason the "rebels" have weapons at all is because some soldiers who were ordered to shoot at their own people defected and took their weapons with them. And there's no reason at all for me to think that it's a small uprising either. According to the Wikipedia, "the Syrian Army has besieged the cities of Daraa, Douma, Baniyas, Hama, Homs, Aleppo, Talkalakh, Idlib, Rastan, Jisr ash-Shughur, Deir ez-Zor, Zabadani and Latakia, among other towns." That's your definition of "quite small"?

Of course you changed your tune in the last post and now the protests are grass roots but are just egged on by Western powers (read: the US & Israel). I think it's been clear for some time that Syria would not be another Libya. It would be a very sticky situation with all those Russian interests plus 15,000 Iranian troops stationed there. And the idea that this is all part of the greater objective of attacking Iran is laughable. No, I believe your support for the Syrian regime has more to do with your obsession with Israel. It's obvious you're sad to see Israel's enemies drop like flies one by one. I oppose Israel's politics too, but that doesn't mean I have to accept the bad behavior of Israel's enemies or lament the fall of a bastard dictator. Not only that, I don't believe these events actually hurt the Palestinians or strengthen the Israelis.

Assad is the one with the guns and the power and I thought that's the type of thing you were all for opposing. For a while I thought maybe your style of thinking is common amongst the leftist groups, but I got this timely email from Avaaz.org today: Smuggle hope into Syria.

 

[robert l. bentham]

http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/02/14/but-syriasly-folks/

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

You know Fluffy, I'm a little disturbed by your stance on this. I always thought that you at the very least stood up for the little guy. Yet here you are standing up for the "man", the dictator Assad.

That's right Mike. And when I was against the war on Afghanistan it was because I was with the terrorists. And when I was against the War on Iraq it was because I was with Saddam, and when I was against the war on Libya it was because I loved Gaddafi, and now that I am against the war on Syria it is because I am with Assad, in exactly the same way that I am against Harper's Internet surveillance Bill C30 I am with the paedophiles.

According to the Wikipedia, "the Syrian Army has besieged the cities of Daraa, Douma, Baniyas, Hama, Homs, Aleppo, Talkalakh, Idlib, Rastan, Jisr ash-Shughur, Deir ez-Zor, Zabadani and Latakia, among other towns." That's your definition of "quite small"?

The Kosovo war started with just very small teams of snipers shooting civilians for weeks before the society fractured
into distrusting groups that eventually engaged in all out civil war in which NATO threw itself for "humanitarian" reasons and accidentally ended up creating a new country run by criminals in which they, also accidentally - I'm sure - built a giant US military base. And the same groups who were involved in getting that war going were also on the ground in Libya advising the rebels there.

Neither of those overthrows were bloodless - NATO killed a lot of people and bombed a lot of civilian infrastructure, hospitals, schools, sewage and water treatment. It takes only a few active, well backed provocateurs to move a large crowd. It is the expendable crowd of locals that will take casualties and and once this confrontation grows big enough to be an excuse for NATO to step in thousands more will die. That's the script. We have seen this several times before. Why do you want Syria bombed? Why do you want Syrian infrastructure destroyed?

I think it's been clear for some time that Syria would not be another Libya. It would be a very sticky situation with all those Russian interests plus 15,000 Iranian troops stationed there.

Oh no. Don't say they may end up somehow getting fired on by Iranian troops. Golly. I'm sure they wouldn't want that - that would mean war with Iran!

Assad is the one with the guns and the power and I thought that's the type of thing you were all for opposing. For a while I thought maybe your style of thinking is common amongst the leftist groups, but I got this timely email from Avaaz.org today: Smuggle hope into Syria.

I got that email from Avaaz and I got one just like it from them for Libya. I wrote them a scathing letter back then and that a good number of weeks before the bombing started. Avaaz is lead around by the propaganda just as much as the members of parliament are and as much many of the general population are. Syria has been on the hit list for years and now this ratcheting up has been going on for a long time. If the western powers finally get to do exactly what they have been saying they want to do for a decade, then it's just a coincidence? Ok, but they've been getting a hell of a string of luck.

 

[Glaucus]

Almost forgot about this thread. But the recent news coming out of Syria has me really upset about what's going on there.

That's right Mike. And when I was against the war on Afghanistan it was because I was with the terrorists. And when I was against the War on Iraq it was because I was with Saddam, and when I was against the war on Libya it was because I loved Gaddafi, and now that I am against the war on Syria it is because I am with Assad, in exactly the same way that I am against Harper's Internet surveillance Bill C30 I am with the paedophiles.

Look, I know you're not a terrorist sympathizer and I didn't accuse (or imply) that you are. I did imply that you're sympathetic to the enemies of Israel. And despite what Israelis might say, I don't believe that automatically makes you a terrorist sympathizer.

The Kosovo war started with just very small teams of snipers shooting civilians for weeks before the society fractured into distrusting groups that eventually engaged in all out civil war in which NATO threw itself for "humanitarian" reasons and accidentally ended up creating a new country run by criminals in which they, also accidentally - I'm sure - built a giant US military base.

How it started always depends on who you talk to. I remember you once mentioned you have Serbian friends, how much of that are you basing on what they told you? But I do agree with much of what you say, that the KLA was the first to use armed resistance, but there's more to it than that. The Serbs were also exploiting their authority as well. But most importantly, NATO wasn't involved in Kosovo until much later. My good Bosnian friend, who lived through the Bosnian war, doesn't have much of an opinion about the Serbs. But more interestingly, his beef with the West is that they did nothing for Bosnia until most of the horror was already over.

And the same groups who were involved in getting that war going were also on the ground in Libya advising the rebels there.

This sounds an awful lot like one of your assertions. What do you have to back this up? And if all you got is some link to RT.com, spare me.

Neither of those overthrows were bloodless - NATO killed a lot of people and bombed a lot of civilian infrastructure, hospitals, schools, sewage and water treatment.

Well, we don't really need to worry about that in Syria, Assad is so far doing a great job of completely destroying his own cities, infrastructure and oh ya, killing indiscriminately. If that's your worry, than there's no need to worry.

It takes only a few active, well backed provocateurs to move a large crowd.

Yes it does, but that sounds like you're suggesting that crowds moved by provocateurs deserve death. Personally I don't fully buy that argument. Could a few well placed Russian agents insight Canadians to start a large scale armed conflict? I doubt it. Put another way, if Quebec separatists received funding from Russian agents, would that justify Harper's use of artillery and tank fire to squash their efforts?

What's going on in Syria is quite simple, Assad does not have the following of the majority of his people (and yes, only a minority actually support him as his support base is mostly from Shia and Christian groups, the majority is Sunni). I really don't care if the CIA or any other foreign group insighted the Sunnis to pursue their right to free themselves from the tyrannical rule of the minority (which btw, is the only way a minority can rule). And in fact, if you're so worried about external influences, it's the ruling minority that has received by far the most help there. Yes, Russian and Iranian interests have secured the minority rule in Syria at the expense of the majority. If the CIA is in fact involved they are at the very most leveling the playing field.

Oh no. Don't say they may end up somehow getting fired on by Iranian troops. Golly. I'm sure they wouldn't want that - that would mean war with Iran!

You side stepped my point. You always point out that Saudi Arabia has police & troops in Yemen (I believe), and yet it's a non issue in Syria? It's quite clear to me that your position here isn't about the interests of common people in Syria, it's about some greater political agenda and you're willing to look the other way because not doing so may interfere with your interests.

I got that email from Avaaz and I got one just like it from them for Libya. I wrote them a scathing letter back then and that a good number of weeks before the bombing started.

I think Avaaz is right on the money. There are crimes being committed. I think it's a shame all we're doing is watching. But we're hardly even doing that. Lisa subscribed us to the Winnipeg Sun for some stupid reason, which is a right wing rag as far as I'm concerned, and I was looking through it the other day when I noticed they didn't even print one story about Syria. Yesterday they buried an article about Syria on the 5th or 6th page. If this is all a CIA plot to get us into Syria, well, why aren't the neo-con puppet media moguls trumpeting the horrors of Syria? It's because they don't care to go into Syria. So not to worry Fluffy, the Syrians will be slaughtered. You'll win this one.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Not sure which reality you're prescribing to at the moment, but last time I checked Russia has a veto power in the UN security council. Seems to me that's all they'd need to do. And oh my, they already did do just that.

And folks are trying to work around that. If they can make "no security council" resolutions pile up high enough they can stoke the situation enough to either force Russia and China's hand (pretty much forcing them to join in the game because they would be in danger of losing their assets any way.