Syrian dictatorship continues slaughtering children

[Junai]

Who can argue with pictures of tortured children. A strong military presence is justified. What bothers me is that noone seems to understand what the heck is going on, and for some reason, one country after the other is invaded - according to the masterplan in the classified memo he mentioned.

[obyknven]

I

[obyknven]

http://youtu.be/2iAnhGCaG6s

[Orogun01]

I love how they used the soundtrack of "The Hurt Locker".

[Farbautisonn]

What goes on in Syria has been going on in Sub sahara, and the far east, since the 60'es and before. Crap you positively will not believe happens all over the world. Syria isnt black. Its gray. However like most westerners we are so used to white and nice orderly societies and niceties, that when faced with gray, we assume its black because we dont know how black the world can be and indeed is.

 

Only reason why we notice in Syria is due to its geopolitical importance in a highly unstable, but resource vital, area of the world. Assad is a trained physician, a man who took the hipocratic oath. And yet he is responsible for butchering his own. But thats the middle east in a nutshell. Politics are much more 14th century europe than 21st century europe. Its "face" "power" and "propaganda" over "discourse" "compromise" and "diplomacy". And it will remain so for the foreseeable future.

[Gorth]

Only reason why we notice in Syria is due to its geopolitical importance in a highly unstable, but resource vital, area of the world. Assad is a trained physician, a man who took the hipocratic oath. And yet he is responsible for butchering his own. But thats the middle east in a nutshell

Only strange if you consider "Syrians" his own. I could perfectly well imagine that he consider the Alawites "his own" and the Sunnis and Christians a necessary evil. Not too different from Libya where the conflict was between clans and regions (followers of the Senussis versus whatever Gaddafi was). So yes, grey indeed. Not good vs. evil, just us vs. them power struggles, the rest of the world cheering from the sideline for their favourite horse in the race.

[Farbautisonn]

Only strange if you consider "Syrians" his own. I could perfectly well imagine that he consider the Alawites "his own" and the Sunnis and Christians a necessary evil. Not too different from Libya where the conflict was between clans and regions (followers of the Senussis versus whatever Gaddafi was). So yes, grey indeed. Not good vs. evil, just us vs. them power struggles, the rest of the world cheering from the sideline for their favourite horse in the race.

I undestand what you are saying and you are absolutely correct that tribal affinity is alot more important than most here in the west assume. And yep, the alawites are his tribe. The Sunnis and christians are a part of his kingdom however and the christians have supported Assad, not because they liked him, but because they feared (and fear), what comes after him. They look to other nations in the region and see their future post assad spelled out quite nicely for them. Not a pretty picture. So... Assad does have to factor in other tribes. He might not feel anything but contempt for them, but he does have to factor them in, and he does. He is many things but he isnt stupid.

 

I dont even see him as an "evil man" in the sense of Black and White. He does what he needs to do to stay in power. What he is doing is no different from what european, asian and indeed american nations have done in the past. Our "palette" for ethics and moralities however has changed in the west. Our sense of humanity and right and wrong too. But its a change brought about by widespread affluence and peace. Two things not present in most of the world.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Farbautisonn

[BruceVC]

Only strange if you consider "Syrians" his own. I could perfectly well imagine that he consider the Alawites "his own" and the Sunnis and Christians a necessary evil. Not too different from Libya where the conflict was between clans and regions (followers of the Senussis versus whatever Gaddafi was). So yes, grey indeed. Not good vs. evil, just us vs. them power struggles, the rest of the world cheering from the sideline for their favourite horse in the race.

 

I dont even see him as an "evil man" in the sense of Black and White. He does what he needs to do to stay in power. What he is doing is no different from what european, asian and indeed american nations have done in the past. Our "palette" for ethics and moralities however has changed in the west. Our sense of humanity and right and wrong too. But its a change brought about by widespread affluence and peace. Two things not present in most of the world.

 

You make some good points but the concept of " staying in power at all costs" is completely unacceptable in the 21 Century, just because it happened in the past does not mean we should accept it now. This has been a major challenge in the development and advancement of Africa where corrupt dictators have stayed in power for decades. There are still examples of this, like Mugabe in Zimbabwe, but they are less and less. Assad would have been removed months ago by certain members in the UN security council but we all know Russia and China have vetoed any military action as they feel they were misled in Libya. The question you need to ask yourself is actually a simple one " do you think a government has the right to use its military to suppress political dissension"? The answer should be a resounding "no" and the UN should support intervention under a certain framework.

 

Iraq is a bad example of regime change and Libya is a good example of how regime change can be implemented.

[Gorth]

Libya is a good example of how regime change can be implemented.

Executing your predecessor and grab power for yourself, shelling a few villages in the process when they wont march to the new tune?

[BruceVC]

Libya is a good example of how regime change can be implemented.

Executing your predecessor and grab power for yourself, shelling a few villages in the process when they wont march to the new tune?

 

Despite what you think I firmly believe that under the circumstances the regime change in Libya was addressed the best way it could be. We can't look at this in the context of political changes in the Western world. Libya is a country of tribes with a brutal history. The West assisted in overthrowing Gaddafi without "boots on the ground". The West also wasn't seen as trying to enforce its own version of Democracy on Libya at the end of the conflict. Certain Western countries are now seen as allies of Libya and the current government in Libya respects this. When that American diplomat was killed the Libyan government moved quickly to unequivocally condemn it and act against the people responsible. Libya is a friend of the West, this is a huge plus when it comes to the political dynamics of the Middle East and the fact that there is negative sentiment against the West from certain Middle East countries. There are also certain lucrative contracts around rebuilding the country that have correctly gone to Western countries.

 

Is Libya a completely stable country now, are there no tribal factions and do they follow our interpretation of Democracy. No of course not , as there are certain cultural differences that in my opinion will never change. But there is no reason we can't do business with Libya and consider them an important fledgling Democracy in the region. We should also be proud of the fact that we prevented a massacre of the Libyans that we are seeing in Syria to a certain degree. So I do consider Libya a successful regime change under the circumstances

[Farbautisonn]

You make some good points but the concept of " staying in power at all costs" is completely unacceptable in the 21 Century,

Perhaps in an ethical and moral sense, but in a sense of Realpoliik... not really. Especially if you do not want to bring about change by force IE like Iraq. Furthermore the "ethical and moral sense" is one that is western... and basically another form of cultural imperialism. An imperialism where we in the west try to impose our values and norms on the third world. Here life means everything. In the third world a buffalo means more than the life of a single person. Because that buffalo can provide food and labour for a familiy of five. A person cannot.

 

 

Just because it happened in the past does not mean we should accept it now. This has been a major challenge in the development and advancement of Africa where corrupt dictators have stayed in power for decades. There are still examples of this, like Mugabe in Zimbabwe, but they are less and less.

Africa is corrupt. Infact most of the third world is. Hell southern Europe is corrupt. Mugabe is a prime example yes but he is certainly not the only one or the worst example in africa. Its a continent teeming with examples of corrupt dictatorships. We have to accept some corruption because sociocultural norms and narratives does not change over night. Hell it doesnt change over a couple of generations. Some places it never changes at all. Dictatorships take all forms and shapes.

 

Assad would have been removed months ago by certain members in the UN security council but we all know Russia and China have vetoed any military action as they feel they were misled in Libya.

I dont think so. Assad and Syria isnt Libya. The Syrian armed forces are relatively high tech with access to high end russian AA artillery for instance. A campain in Syria would cost the lives of pilots and cause them to be paraded on television. Assad allso has B/C (biological and chemical) waragents. He wouldnt hesitate to let them loose if we intervened. I dont think the west has any particular interest in intervening in Syria. We have an interest in cutting off Syria from Iran, but as we have seen in other fledgeling states, democracy usually ends up with more or less islamic parties taking the lions share of the vote. That is not in our interest. Infact there are few, if any advantages in getting involved in Syria.

 

The question you need to ask yourself is actually a simple one " do you think a government has the right to use its military to suppress political dissension"? The answer should be a resounding "no" and the UN should support intervention under a certain framework.

Personally I would say "no". However Im not naiive. Most of the world have governments that have some semblence of dictatorships. Russia would be a prime example. Its got a democratic "finish" but in reality its pretty much Tzar Putin and then his realm. It will happen. It happens in alot of places. It will continue to happen in many places. The UN is a lame duck. Most of the UN charters where they are involving themselves in the third world is under resolutions that basically amount to "fire when fired upon, and in case of massacres and mass rapes, count the numbers later and take nice photoes for the Hague". Despite the "never again" credo, the UN hasnt been able to prevent most of the crap in the world. If something IS done, its usually done a day late and a doller short. And it cant be helped as most of the nations who have the vote are either fully or semi dictatorial and the UN is an organisation where most is decided by majority votes. Its not going to change. Infact, its likely to get "worse" before it gets "better".

 

Iraq is a bad example of regime change and Libya is a good example of how regime change can be implemented.

I find the comparison to be that of oranges and apples. Libya is a sparsely populated nation where a guerilla force was able to take controll of cities. Iraq was a fullblown war where the US and coalition forces tried and tries to do too many things at once.

[GuybrushWilco]

There probably will not be much in the way of military intervention in Syria by western governments, because the populace is to weary of it. The Russian government makes a lot of money by selling its weapons to Assad, and they want to keep on making that money, and also they would like to keep their naval base there. Assad is a dictator and an ally to Russia, and so they will condemn mid-east governments and western interference when it is convenient for them, but still support dictatorships when they stand to make money! Just like the western countries

[obyknven]

Rebel's magic don't work. In Soviet Russia helicopters hit rockets.

http://youtu.be/kPAVv837seA

[Agelastos]

 

The why was asked for, and got the answer. Don't like it? The only solution is to go back to 6372 BC, get yourself appointed God and redesign human nature so we're capable as a collective (or even as an individual in most cases) of putting moral considerations above economic, political or practical ones, that's the only thing that'll 'fix' it.

 

And contend with the near-complete religious monopoly of the Mother Goddess? Nah! Sounds like a lot of work.

What about the 4th millennium BC? That seems to have been a pretty good period for up-and-coming new gods.

[Volourn]

"I dont even see him as an "evil man" in the sense of Black and White. He does what he needs to do to stay in power. "

 

Sounds evil to me.

[obyknven]

City fight

http://youtu.be/zr_G6_7Ijb4

[AGX-17]

What goes on in Syria has been going on in Sub sahara, and the far east, since the 60'es and before. Crap you positively will not believe happens all over the world. Syria isnt black. Its gray. However like most westerners we are so used to white and nice orderly societies and niceties, that when faced with gray, we assume its black because we dont know how black the world can be and indeed is.

 

Only reason why we notice in Syria is due to its geopolitical importance in a highly unstable, but resource vital, area of the world. Assad is a trained physician, a man who took the hipocratic oath. And yet he is responsible for butchering his own. But thats the middle east in a nutshell. Politics are much more 14th century europe than 21st century europe. Its "face" "power" and "propaganda" over "discourse" "compromise" and "diplomacy". And it will remain so for the foreseeable future.

 

There's plenty of grey morality to be found all over the western world, it's just not in the form of warfare. A world of black & white is more comfortable than a world of grey. A world where your own government, your own people are responsible for the deaths of innocents or people who want to make the world a better place is harder to stomach than one where your government only kills/imprisons/tortures terrorists, rebels and spies.

 

As for politics, it always boils down to the ruling class vs. the ruled class. It was true of ancient civilizations and it is still true today. Even in republics with free & fair elections, the candidates are almost exclusively members of the ruling elite to begin with, an unspoken prerequisite of the right to rule. Human society, with a few exceptions, has always been shaped in the same way as most social animals, the "strongest" dominate all those who are weaker until someone stronger replaces the former Alpha.

[obyknven]

I'll just leave this here.

http://youtu.be/8rCvfwoRGMg

And once again, we are about to engage in military action against Syria and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the Cold War with Russia. We're now engaged in a game of "chicken" with Russia which presents a much greater threat to our security than does Syria. How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border? We would consider that a legitimate concern for us. But, for us to be engaged in Syria, where the Russian have a legal naval base, is equivalent to the Russians being in our backyard in Mexico. We are hypocritical when we condemn Russian for protecting their neighborhood interests for exactly what we have been doing ourselves, thousands of miles away from our shores. There's no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance and encouraging civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria. Falsely charging the Russians with supplying military helicopters to Assad is an unnecessary provocation. Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda. Most knowledgeable people now recognize that the planned war against Syria is merely the next step to take on the Iranian government, something the neo-cons openly admit.

[Gorgon]

The main concern for me is what will be the end result. Will the Syrian people have self determination (Libyia) or will Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood wind up holding all the cards. They are just as interested in regime change as a way of shifting the geopolitical situation as is the West.

 

There is a potentially huge gain with very little direct risk to backing the right group in Syria, but it's a gamble.

 

Also I wonder if Russian media have not been alterning its reporting to suit the convenience of continued arms sales to Syria and resisting regime change efforts as a matter of course, no matter if they are justified or not. It's kinda hard to know what motivates news organisations in a country where criticising the president can land you in jail.

[obyknven]

Also I wonder if Russian media have not been alterning its reporting to suit the convenience of continued arms sales to Syria and resisting regime change efforts as a matter of course, no matter if they are justified or not.

Russian peoples likes arms sales to our friends. Our weapons allows our allies to protect yourself.

For example there ANNA reported about Syrian upgrade SAM defense

http://translate.goo....info/node/9493

and in this video Syrian talk to Russian Military advisor about T-72 tanks combat experience.

http://youtu.be/eOQKOZJfwu4

Why we must worried about this?

 

It's kinda hard to know what motivates news organisations in a country where criticising the president can land you in jail.

Western scary fantasies about Russia always hilarious, especially if you known how many political assassinations happen in "democratic" Europe .

 

Christian Masson

https://groups.googl...gie/Zyygo5q5EJU

http://tech.groups.y...ssage/444?var=1

 

Kostas Tsalikidis

http://www.theregist...ooping_scandal/

 

Adamo Bowe

http://www.alternet....tapping_scandal

 

Gareth Williams

http://www.dailymail...nvolvement.html

 

Jacinta Saldaña

http://www.independe...intha-saldanha/

 

Three PKK members killed in Paris attack

http://www.ekurd.net.../turkey4407.htm

[obyknven]

President Bashar al-Assad speech ( 6 January 2013 ) make Western politicians so angry.

 

Indonesian president:

It is hoped that there will be a new leader who cares for the Syrian people and creates an acceptable peace so the situation can improve.

After this he repeat Assad's peace plan as own

http://mirajnews.com...d-conflict.html

 

The U.S. State Department spokeswoman.

is yet another attempt by the regime to cling to power and does nothing to advance the Syrian people's goal of a political transition,...

His initiative is detached from reality.. and would only allow the regime to further perpetuate its bloody oppression of the Syrian people

http://www.upi.com/T...0/?spt=hs&or=tn

 

Germany's foreign minister

Instead of martial tones again, he should finally free the way up for a transition government and a political new start in Syria

http://www.naharnet....nd-hypocritical

 

French foreign minister

The sentences of Bashar al-Assad show once again that he is denying reality in order to justify the repression of the Syrian people

http://ansamed.info/...ty_8036348.html

 

Meanwhile own Western peace plan not different from Assad's plan. Why Assad's speech make them so angry and non-adequate?

[Gorgon]

I'm kinda curious what you think of Syria's human rights record. Or does that simply not register through your centimeter thick Russia goggles.

[obyknven]

Why Assad's speech make them so angry and non-adequate?

 

First reason: Bashar denounces Western support for terrorism

So, the events in the Arab world, especially in Syria, presented the Western powers with an opportunity to transfer as many terrorists as possible to Syria to turn it into the land of Jihad, hence dispensing with two troublesome rivals at the same time through getting rid of the terrorists and weakening Syria which is a nuisance for the West.

 

An organization specialized in terrorism issued a month or so ago a report on the decrease in terrorist acts in general, especially in the Middle and East Asia, which is true, because most of the terrorists came to Syria from these countries and some even come from the Western countries

 

Western media described these terrorists as revolutionaries and freedom fighter. Bashar give proof that this is a false.

They call it a revolution, but in fact it has nothing to do with revolutions. A revolution needs thinkers. A revolution is built on thought. Where are their thinkers? A revolution needs leaders. Who is its leader? Revolutions are built on science and thought not on ignorance, on pushing the country ahead not taking it centuries back, on spreading light not cutting power lines. A revolution is usually done by the people not by importing foreigners to rebel against the people. A revolution is in the interest of people not against the interests of people. Is this a revolution? Are those revolutionaries? They are a bunch of criminals.

 

Second reason. Bashar reject West (NWO) right to consider yourself as "entire international community" .

But the West is not the entire international community, as there are world countries, namely Russia, China and the BRICS countries, and many other countries which won’t agree to meddling in the internal affairs of countries and destabilizing the region based on their principles, interests and care for the people’s freedom in determining their destiny. To those countries I extend my thanks, namely to Russia, China and Iran, and to all those who stood by the Syrian people to determine their own destiny.

 

This alternative to NWO, alternative to Western "Truth" and Western "democracy" make NWO leaders so mad. If peoples understand what World non equal NATO and Golden Billion non equal whole Humanity, if peoples see what spreading "democracy" in reality mean spreading neo-colonialism and obscurantism, then NWO do fail. They fear so much. They are so powerful yet, but even now their plans are ruined. If small Syria can resist them, it's means all other can do this too. Because this Western reaction so hysterical.

 

Here you can read Bashar full speech (with "detached from reality" peace plan)

http://www.globalres...nscript/5317977

After this watch any your media and imagine how much they brainwash you.

[BruceVC]

The conflict in Syria was started because Assad chose to use the might of his army and police to quell the initial political dissension to his dictatorial rule, he refused to make any serious changes to give his citizens more rights and political freedom. The background to this civil war is almost identical to Libya. This conflict would have been over ages ago if Russia and China hadn't vetoed any military actions through the UN security council. I blame Russia more for this as they can influence China so the blood of the thousands of people killed is on there hands, not that Russia cares. Now the war has become complicated. There are several Islamic fundamentalist groups that are now involved in fighting for the Free Syrian Army. These groups have links to Al-Qaeda so it makes it hard for the West to supply weapons to them.

 

I believe that Assad will be defeated in the next 6 months but at what cost? Thousands of people killed and the iinfrastructure of Syrian destroyed. This could very likely have been prevented if Russia hadn't vetoed military action, there wouldn't have been boots on the ground in Syria but the contributing Western countries could have stopped Assad using his air force by controlling the air. A similar military sstrategy that was used in Libya could have been adopted. "Well done Russia", for achieving a political stalemate at the UN and helping the drag the conflict on.

[Zoraptor]

Yep, what this world needs is a bunch of self satisfied bankrupt neocolonialist White Man's Burdener hypocrites running around inflicting their vision on a world in which the problems are to a large extent the result of their last bout of vision infliction and holier than thou moralising. Russia helps Assad because he's their ally. The West helps the Khalifa's because they're our ally. Russia sells arms to Syria. We sell arms to Bahrain. Russia has a naval base in Tartus, the US has a naval base in Manama. The West complains about Iranian/ Hezbollah involvement in Syria but condones 6000 Saudi soldiers rolling over the causeway to squash an inconvenient uprising because the majority there worship the wrong branch of Islam and thus don't deserve the FREEEDOM!!! that Syrians do. The UNSC resolution on Libya specifically said that the West would protect civilians and as soon as it became convenient they threw that out the window and not only ignored attacks on but helped bomb inconvenient civilian areas- in direct contravention of their own resolution. Yet somehow it's all Different, Just Because and the Russkies and Chinese not believing a word to come out of the west's collective mouths is unreasonable because the West projects rainbows and puppy dogs (from its secondary fundamental orifice, like suspicious liquid from an internet shock site. Biggest bunch of hypocrites ever, more full of asterisks than a cess pit after a curry and bran eating marathon).

 

Short story; it's realpolitik. The west will happily ignore international law and its own principles whenever convenient while pontificating and moralising like it's pure as snow, but will throw a wobbly whenever someone baulks them like a 5 year old wanting an ice cream. Sucks if you're Syrian, sucks if you're from Bahrain or Sirte or Bani Walid every bit as much.