Hildegard

I know it ain't new that is why I used commas. Also I was not implying that this situation in Ukraine is the exact same as a possible scenario with immigrants in Europe. Was just talking about a modus operandi where you by various means have one group of people that are the majority in some region, have them vote in favor of independence or annexation by some other state and they can change internationally recognized borders. Of course that alone is often far from what it takes to pull off something like that. Aside the history and the demographics of the Crimea the only factor that manages something like that is power of one entity that overpowers the other. Like NATO with Kosovo and like Russia with the Crimea and possibly the Eastern Ukraine. The only 'legitimacy' of Russia which is going to allow them to overtake this situation in their own favor is their military supremacy and readiness to act militarily. Not referendums, not votes, not demographics, not historic circumstances, not public opinion and any kind of such things. So in essences you have a group that is a majority in one region, back them up with any kind of adequate brute force, have them vote it out to make things legitimate in the eyes of the world and you change borders of countries.

So basically you have 'new' means of changing internationally recognized borders. Not directly by military power but with demographic changes done by either relocation of a large group of people or by high birthrate within a certain minority that during time becomes significant in total percentage of the population. Then empower them with voting rights while taking into consideration that melting pot is often more of a theory then reality and you have new rules, new laws, new countries, out with the old. Some would argue that it's only unavoidable change in the long run but it could easily be just long term tactics by a certain group. Makes me wonder if the map of Europe will be the same in the next century which I highly doubt since certain current minorities are often better protected in the EU then Koalas in Australia.

In fact, they're evil Nazi terrorists involved in a Zionist conspiracy against the Slav nations.

One brave Godzilla against millions of bloodthirsty homo sapiens whom infested the entire planet, gonna watch this although it's gonna probably end tragically.

Libya justified? Looking from an economics point of view return on Investment was in that conflict was a jackpot and therefor justified. Have a friend that went to post war Libya, he works in the construction business, stories he told me made me want do dig more about Libya because pretty much there aren't any stories or news on the front page coming from there creating an image that everything is fine over there. First a few links: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/groundtruth/how-militias-took-control-post-gaddafi-libya http://www.globalresearch.ca/absolute-lawlessness-libyan-democracy-two-years-after-nato-air-war/5323093 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/jun/07/confronting-rape-post-war-libya http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Chaos-caused-by-Libyan-war-delaying-intervention-in-Syria-313803 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html You can always argue Libya is better off without Gaddafi, that's always a suitable explanation for any wrong doings going on in that country. And put a few of those phrases that transition from a dictatorship to a democracy is always a tough road and all that other crap politician in the West say when they wash their hands from the responsibility and the consequences of their selfishly motivated actions. Libya was nothing but a gold rush for western states and foreign investors. UK spend what, 500 million dollars on the Libyan campaign, the reconstruction projects in Libya alone are estimated to cost around 300 billion dollars and guess who's gonna get those contracts? Let me quote a certain secretary: “Libya is a relatively wealthy country with oil reserves, and I expect there will be opportunities for British and, indeed, other companies to get involved in the reconstruction of Libya,” said British defense secretary Philip Hammond. Quote above sums up not the convenient aftermath bonus of the Libya intervention but the main reason. Not human rights, lives, security or otherwise, all which are really endangered nowdays in many areas more then ever. Libya was about economics, Syria is about geopolitics and strategic reasons. djlkjl

One thing really puzzles me, everybody is saying Chemical weapons are the red flag, we said so countless times (Obama). So I guess it's ok for Obama and the West if various sides in Syria keep killing people with led (by the tens of thousands so far) but if someone (Assad) uses Chemical weapons and kills several hundred that's it, we're going to war. Wave the red flag, don't matter the evidence, oh wait the ever sincere and transparent truth loving Israelis are gonna get it for us, launch the planes. From that standpoint this isn't at all about Syrian civilians suffering, dying and becoming refuges. This is all about using the current conflict in Syria for the US and its allies in the region to get rid of an adversary. Obama, UK or France don't give a **** if by doing so 100, or 200 thousand Syrians die, pure statistics and nothing else. In my opinion striking Assad will not end in negotiation between him and the opposition. Although Assad's forces have the upper hand in the conflict his situation isn't perfect. There were many forces among his ranks that deserted and with constant airstrikes that is going to reach further levels, easily those to a critical point of breaking. As I stated before, the intention of this Western intervention isn't about saving human lives but about taking down Assad. The opposition on the other side is homogeneous when it comes whom are they fighting against, we'll see later on in a post Assad Syria how they'll get along. Especially with that Islamic state of Iraq within Syria or what's it called, I could easily imagine a few of those popping out, having a certain copy of Lebanon in Syria. Or maybe those Al-Nusra leaders are gonna turn around and we'll have great new stories like this one: http://i.imgur.com/OceJj8Z.jpg

What reason did the 'west' had to attack a sovereign country for 2 and a half years? Nobody is forcing the US to attack anyone, they're doing it at their own free will. And it's irrefutable only in the minds of you and your alike.

On Wednesday Al-Nusrah backed by US and its allies attacked a small Christian town of Maaloula with heavy machine guns, suicide bombers and mortar fire targeting people and ancient Churches on UNESCO list of world heritage: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/as-us-strike-looms-al-qaida-linked-rebels-attack-regime-held-christian-village/2013/09/05/0d0bede6-15fa-11e3-961c-f22d3aaf19ab_story.html Also another point why this Al-Nusrah enjoys wide support from Turkey is because they're doing the dirty work for the Turks by butchering Kurdish minority in northern Syria thus fleeing to Northern Iraq seeking refuge: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/28/the_civil_war_within_syria_s_civil_war_kurdish_fighters http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/world/middleeast/syrian-kurds-find-more-than-a-refuge-in-iraqi-kurdistan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-kurdish-muslim-conflict-110/ Don't have a doubt those sick bastards in Saudi Arabia and Turkey are glad how their allies are doing in Syria and most of all don't have a doubt that US doesn't find it difficult to turn a blind eye what is being done by forces they directly and indirectly support. But Mr. Kerry says Al Qaeda elements in Syria are little and none so I have to believe him just like when he says Assad is the one that used Chemical weapons.

Given the past it's really normal behavior for Israel to produce whatever it's needed to harm a longtime enemy of Israel. With Assad out of the picture Hezbollah is going to lose an irreplaceable ally. Syria torn by inner conflict perfectly suits Israel way better then Assad. Without him Iran is left alone with US military around them and political/military US puppets. And I firmly believe all of this is a prelude for the military intervention against Iran in time to come. Video showing extremist among rebels is just one out of many evidence I bring out every time there is someone portraying Assad opposition as freedom kitten loving people.

Do you really think that it's possible to get the 'go ahead' from Russia or China? There is no evidence in the world that could convince these countries. And what evidence does the US have hat Assad used Chemical weapons? Please do tell me. It has common sense and frankly that should be more than enough. And the points stands - any evidence gathering is not only pointless but also a complete waste of time. There are no objective information that can be realistically obtained that would ever break through Russia's and China's shield of interests or your vault of conspiracy theories. An accusation has common sense based on someones belief and hence it's righteous, justified and correct. LOL The only theory here I see is the dogmatic point of view that Assad is the one that used Chemical weapons. Anyone that says otherwise is a nut, pro-Russia, pro-China and David Icke fan.

Let me see if I have this right. You discount sources because they don't fit your model of what is happening and therefore must be biased, (e.g. the UK article on the Israel intelligence, or SOHR), yet you believe without question the videos posted from the three YouTube accounts of a guy called Eretz Zen who posts a thoroughly one sided set of videos (Last time I checked over 254 videos and everyone is pro-Assad / Anti-rebel) The same Eretz Zen who claims on his Twitter account to be "A secular Syrian opposed to having my country turned into a Taliban-like state." and we only have his word to take for that The same Eretz Zen who posts videos without attribution, without confirmation and which, in at least two cases are known to have been faked. That's what you call an objective, impartial and trustworthy source of information? I discount the source of the so called evidence because it comes out of the country that is a sworn enemy of Syria and the current regime. It comes out of the country that has several times in the past few years bombed positions in Syria using their air force and therefor breaking international law. It comes out of the country that isn't in any way unbiased or in a position to be an impartial source of evidence. The so called evidence is no slum dunk to prove anything and especially depending from whom it came from. When it comes to the video I posted it's just one of countless evidence out there that among Syrian opposition there are bunch of Islamist and Jihadist. There is a major group called Al-Nusrah that publicly sided with Al Qaeda funded by US allies and indirectly by the US itself. There are tens of thousands of foreign fighters in Syria, same bunch like the ones that came into Iraq a few years back. But it's no breaking news that US supports whomever depending when it suits them. Getting back to the source of the 'evidence'. It's like we have a trial one subject against a conglomerate in which one member of the conglomerate says it has evidence against the accused, won't represent it to the court, we have to trust their word and because of it pass a sentence of guilty against the accused. And the evidence is a so called communication intercept, like the ones showed in the UN security council before the Iraq invasion. With only evidence like that you couldn't accuse a person for one murder in a normal judiciary, but I guess it's enough to start a military strike against another state.

Do you really think that it's possible to get the 'go ahead' from Russia or China? There is no evidence in the world that could convince these countries. And what evidence does the US have hat Assad used Chemical weapons? Please do tell me. On the other hand, I'll help you with the most convincing evidence: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/israeli-intelligence-intercepted-syria-chemical-talk The Israeli 8200 unit, equal to the American NSA, an utmost objective impartial trustworthy source of information. Especially when it comes to Syria. And don't forget, we have a word from Mr.Kerry and President Obama that US intelligence on Assad's use of Chemical weapons is compelling. Well, that's enough from me, when do we launch?

Didn't see much people here painting things black and white until your post. Evil dictator Assad against sincere freedom loving democratic movement of the FSA and its allies. I was told they'll be organizing a Gay parade in support to their homosexual brothers and sisters on the outskirts of Damascus and al-Nusra is holding a convention up north about religious tolerance. Hope they won't be bombed by Assad's air force or artillery. Oh wait, here is a video from the religious tolerance convention by al-Nusra funded by SA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z61zo1Zpxe4 (I'm sure they're chanting Obama, not Osama)

Came across an article that drew my attention in which Kerry admits there are many Al Qaeda leaders in Syria at the moment. I was under the impression he used different rhetoric in front of the commission the other day. Here's the article: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/kerry-admits-many-al-qaeda-leaders-now-operating-syria Things I should point out that Kerry said: ''where President Barack Obama decided two months ago to provide military support to rebel forces fighting alongside al Qaeda to overthrow the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Asad.' and ''In December 2012, the Obama administration designated the Nusra Front as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and as an alias of al-Qaida in Iraq," said CRS. "Reactions from some Syrian opposition leaders and armed groups were negative. Several armed groups made statements of solidarity with al-Nusra, and prominent civilian figures, including then-President [Ahmed] Khateeb of the SOC [syrian Opposition Coalition], requested that the U.S. government reconsider the designation." ''In June, six months after his administration designated the Nusra Front an al Qaeda alias and terrorist group, President Obama decided to provide military support to the Syrian opposition. '' So let me get this right: 1. US declares Al Nusra a terrorist organization affiliated with Al Qaeda 2. FSA and other rebel fractions are mad about it and protest 3. Different fractions declare solidarity with Al Nusra 4. US six months after continues to provide military and other support anyways Makes sense.

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, most likely. An utterly partial propaganda organisation (allegedly funded by MI6) that was run by a single person from his basement in Coventry (?) but regarded as the Last Word by many media outlets because they collated and showed what they wanted in a convenient way plus had a 'nice' authoritative sounding name, as opposed to less partial organisations that weren't quite so prone towards saying what people wanted to hear like HRW. Thanks for that info, I couldn't remember their name. And a good last post! In other news, Syrian Army has taken control of the strategic town of Ariha and by doing so killed approximately around 390 members of the Al-Nusra movement according to some other reports http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/03/321889/syrian-forces-retake-strategic-town/ EDIT - just a note that a few days ago pro FSA media reports were trolling how Assad's forces are cut off in that town and going on about their great offensive. So much about clear facts from the ground.

You mean "the footage, said to show Father Francois Murad, 49, as the victim in a brutal summary execution by foreign jihadists is likely to be an older video that bares no relation to the death of the Catholic priest." "Father Franҫois Mourad, a Syrian, was shot eight times and killed June 23 at a Catholic monastery in Gassanieh, said Friar Pierbattista Pizzaballa, head of the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land." http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/02/cnn-exclusive-syrian-monk-not-beheaded-by-rebels-friar-says/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10153954/Priest-beheaded-in-Syria-video-actually-shot-dead.html That doesn't mean he was not killed by anti-Assad rebels. Just not in the way the video depicts. Don't even matter who this poor people were that got executed in the video, priests, clerks or farm workers. That Sunni extremist bunch funded and backed by SA and indirectly by the West are killing innocent people in Syria based on their religion and ethnic background like these people: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/25/shock-video-allegedly-shows-al-qaeda-linked-terrorists-stopping-truck-drivers-on-side-of-road-then-executing-them-for-not-being-sunni-muslims/ To them this is Jihad in which they get a chance to kill the infidels. These are the same bunch the US fought and struggled in the Sunni triangle, the same ones that were destroyed and mostly kicked out of Iraq by the Sunni moderates when they saw they were just about killing pretty much everyone without any regard. And when I think of Chemical weapons, nerve gas, I don't have a hard time picturing people like in these videos using them on Shia infidels.

Of course not all of them are terrorist but how can you tell them apart when you give them support and arms? You think the guys I'm about to show in the video don't get weapons from SA financed by them, US, UK, France, Turkey and other countries? If you have the stomach look at the entire video in the link and read the article: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b57_1372272008 Don't know about you but if I had my finger on the trigger, saw Assad's forces on one side and this bunch on the other I wouldn't think twice who to blow up. EDIT - and it's funny how you can see numerous videos from Syria that allegedly show atrocities done by Assad's military on CNN and other mainstream media but none or very very few when it comes to those done by freedom loving Syrian rebels. Wonder why's that.

More and more I'm digging for information the more I'm convinced this conflict in Syria isn't as black and white like many mainstream media wants to portray it. For example this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lWB5ssifTg which was on CNN that's fake, that alleged lesbian from Syria and her heartbreaking blog about homophobic atrocities http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/13/syrian-lesbian-blogger-tom-macmaster. I'm sorry I can't find a link about the story I've read once where most pro-rebel videos from Syria come via office in London under the control of a certain Syrian immigration. Take for an example this article: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/syria/121109/fake-syria-videos-images that just sums up some of the fake videos from Syria. Have in mind that I'm not trying to prove that horrible things aren't happening in Syria, that civilians aren't dying, that Assad isn't a dictator with blood on his hands. What I've noticed is that for a last couple of months there is an active media campaign by certain groups via western mainstream media to show the conflict in Syria only as a 'romantic' conflict between the evil forces of a dictator and the oppressed people of Syria. Such a campaign is almost always a prelude to war where you prep the public for war and the truth aren't the facts on the ground, the truth is what you make it to be through mass media. But unlike Iraq, the world public, even that in US, isn't buying the 'truth' they are so eagerly trying to sell in a pace and quantity they want to. To repeat myself before, I believe someone used chemical weapons in Syria. But who against whom nobody proved and I certainly won't trust Mr.Kerry when he says they have clear evidence, his word means nothing. If it is a smoking gun show it to the world. You won't? My, I'm shocked. When I try to get to the answer who used chemical weapons in Syria by myself I'm puzzled why would Assad authorize the use of chemical weapons being deployed when his forces are winning this conflict? Because he's evil? He could be really evil but I really don't think he's stupid and counterproductive to his own interests in such a matter. Then I ask myself, could the rebels get a hold of such weapons? Let me quote someone much more competent then myself: A former Syrian general who once led the army’s chemical weapons training program said that the main storage sites for mustard gas and nerve agents are supposed to be guarded by thousands of Syrian troops but that they would be easily overrun. The sites are not secure, retired Maj. Gen. Adnan Silou, who defected to the opposition in June, said in an interview near Turkey’s border with Syria. “Probably anyone from the Free Syrian Army or any Islamic extremist group could take them over,” he said. If I'm to trust this former military officer that some Syrian rebel fraction could get their hands on such weapons couldn't have some of the Sunni extremists use it against Shia population? Sunni jihadist view Shia as worse scum then Jews or Christians. Couldn't some rebel group use it randomly or target civilians in an attempt to blame Assad and drag other countries into conflict on their side? Is that really a far stretched conspiracy theory? I'm not trying to put immediate blame on the rebels but are many plausible scenarios for me to raise a question and ask: give me proof who used chemical weapons against whom, and proof certainly isn't a word from a US government official. Let me bring up another what-if scenario, let's say hypothetically that some Syrian rebel forces got their hands on nerve gas and used it. And their usage of such weapons is somehow proven. Do you honestly believe that the US and France would pick out those rebel forces in this conflict and launch strikes on them? Don't even try answering that. For most people it is clear that this conflict is a very complicated one. You have Turkey and Saudi Arabia arming rebels for a lot longer then this whole thing was publicized, you've got Israel, the Hezbollah, Iran backing Assad, lot of interests on various sides. But I have to look at the US, the most powerful player in the field, what are they going to do, what is their interest and how are they gonna achieve it? The US can't afford a ground invasion in Syria for many reasons so I'm expecting only the use of aircraft and missiles. What can they accomplish with that? A regime change? Hardly but possible even so. Assad is currently winning the conflict in Syria and the US strike is suppose to change that but not to reverse the odds but to create a stalemate. It's not in US interests for Assad to go away if that means rebels coming into power with many extremists among them with a threat of Syria turning into an Islamist state. But a Syria torn by conflict, a weak Syria, a weak Assad, an adversary of the US in a way out of the picture with only Iran left standing. But this is not easily achieved because if you bomb Assad too hard you could get him out of the picture and have people in power that could easily pose much bigger problems in the future for the US. So i suppose it will be a limited strike with an imposed no fly zone, arming the rebels with ****load of weapons via Turkey and Saudi Arabia, blaming Assad for all civilian suffering, calling for the UN to come into Syria making that country a country only on paper.

I haven't been frequent on this forum for years but I do remember Tarna as a really good fellow. May you rest in peace Scott.

I really like the satiric interpretation of the current situation in Syria written by a fellow called Mr K N Al-Sabah in a letter to Financial Times: A short guide to the Middle East "Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad! Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi. But Gulf states are pro Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood! Iran is pro Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood! Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US! Gulf states are pro US. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states! Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day."

Here's another video for you: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/26/320508/clip-shows-takfiri-brutality-in-syria/ *WARNING: Graphic material* Don't have time to write a elaborate post but this is not an attempt on my side to show all the rebels in Syria as bad guys just the fact there is no black and white situation over there. Opposition to Assad isn't a one side force like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan but several different groups scattered all over the country. Some of them are really sick people like the ones in the video. Just imagine the likes of them or a similar group getting a hold on chemical weapons from the regular military, I can imagine them quite easily using them without any regard towards civilian life. So, without clear evidence I cannot tell who used Chemical weapons against whom.

The situation in Syria is complicated to say the least. There are many indications that Chemical weapons are being used but no actual proof who is using it against whom. Most people are assuming that Assad's forces are behind it given the fact the regular military has stockpiles of Chemical weapons. On the other hand with all the disarray in Syria one of the rebel fractions could of easily taken such weapons under their control and use them against whomever. Take this video for an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eip0zaJIRfk and disregard the title of the video. Who are these people, where exactly and who are they fighting for? This leads me to another point that many 'youtube video proof' is easily manipulated and abused by either parties involved. And many such videos are grabbed ASAP by the mainstream media without credible information about its background because sensationalism is the guidance, not facts or truth. That comes second or third or way behind. When it comes to US led military intervention it's not going to be because of WMD usage. Like Libya and Iraq, military interventions are not done for altruistic reasons like freedom, democracy, saving civilians and such. That's just propaganda for the public to sugarcoat the entire thing. No, this ain't a conspiracy theory it's just realism. Assad's regime is a western adversary and with the conflict in Syria and the Chemical weapons factor the US is in a position to make a move. Calculate the geopolitical, economic and strategic advantages of a military intervention, the pros and cons, make an extensive feasibility study and make a call. Wars are too expensive, not just financially, to be fought for fairy tale reasons presidents and prime ministers tell to the public. They are like business investments and if research calculation shows that value of ROI is going to be lower then 1 there ain't gonna be no military intervention no matter if half a million more civilians die. In my opinion if the situation on the ground in Syria was similar like in Afghanistan we would of witnessed a military intervention by now or in the very near future. There is no similar force like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan with whom the US teamed up and overthrew the Taliban. What a about the rebels you say? They are nothing like the Northern Alliance in terms of organization, cohesion and most of all their beliefs. Many of the rebels are Islamist, many of those are the same ones that were crossing borders from Syria to Iraq to fight the US. In case of a US led ground invasion I think the war with Assad would just be a prelude to another war between many factions of the Rebels against the US and among themselves. If the US just helped the Rebels with airstrikes to overpower Assad a question pops out: is it better to have Assad in charge of Syria or a possible Islamic government in the years to come (or a Syria engulfed in a civil war without an end)? In case of Syria there are way more variables then in Libya, if it wasn't so planes would of been launched long ago.

I was disgusted by the fact my country joined that economic bureaucratic piece of **** of a union.

Don't understand why so many people are pointing fingers at HBO like they are the original writers. And if you can't handle main characters being killed go watch Steven Segal's movies or something.

Such pro-Serbian interpretation of Balkan history is really fascinating. You're either a Serb or a pro-Serbian individual but either way this interpretation of history is utter biased crap and I won't spend an another minute replying to this rubble of nonsense.