Syria - The last Domino?

[MOD EDIT: This video has some nasty stuff in it. Dead bodies being manhandled and such. Viewer discretion advised. Spudulika, I realise YouTube has a warning, but seriously, put the description before the video.]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su-vte9Iw9k

How much longer this is going to be up I really don't know, but I got this from a former colleague and have been following events in Syria very closely as it's a country I like, have friends in and am genuinely fearful for. I know on CA we'd a heated discussion on Libya, and the madness that ensued there (and is still going on) hasn't hurt the multinationals and their local henchmen. In Egypt it is getting worse and worse (I saw this first hand in May) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...-assault-sinai

Turkey is looking to further it's own efforts to crack down on Kurds http://jordantimes.com/turkey-assad-...kurd-militants

Yemen is still in khat induced chaos http://jordantimes.com/yemen-seizes-...cide-bomb-town

But in Syria the video is of "rebels" throwing bodies of postal workers, some military and those who intervened from the rooftop of the GPO in Aleppo. Now I cannot condone Assad, or his behaviour, or his reckless use of military force. However I get a sick feeling when I read or hear about who is backing these "rebels". When Saudi Arabia and Qatar (to an only slightly lesser degree) are the main funders, questions have to be asked. Saudi funded Al Qaeda until old Osama got the hump when his offer to fight the Iraqis in GW1 was turned down, the country is as corrupt, cruel and undemocratic as anything Orwell could nightmare up. They fund hardline fundies in Southern Russia who have allowed the likes of Kadyrov be clutched to the bosom of his fellow security friends in the Kremlin. They are funding ultra conservative muslims in Tatarstan who recently murdered a moderate preacher and are doing their best to establish a Sunni caliphate along the Volga.

So if Syria falls, what else? Israel is scuppered as its neighbours will be looking for the Golan Heights and the homeland of the Jews will be under threat. I cannot fathom why a numpty like William Hague is making the running and boasting about funding the rebels in the name of democracy. It's just not going to happen.

Maybe I'm just over reacting to this all, but I just don't see this ending nicely.

And just to get the heartland of the US of A onside:

http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-de...ing-us-troops/

While the Russians try to balance it out:

http://www.rt.com/news/syria-ambassa...-421/comments/

Where does a country like Israel get its oil?

Saudi Arabia. It also gets the laser guidance for missiles/rockets used against Palestinians made in Saudi too (Raytheon).

Or do you have another idea?

Thats what I guessed. Money eh?
The only good thing that can come out of this messy conflict imho is that it will strengthen the Kurds in Northern Syria

There's the great anomaly - the largest ethnic group without a homeland, dispersed (locally) over 10 countries and we never hear a word about giving them a palce of their own - especially in Iraq. I guess it doesn't pay to have all that oil.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...talingrad.html


Shows the love of nation these scum have (all of them). Very interestingly, the Saudi special forces (black berets?) are on the ground in Syria. Best bit is the claim that the snipers are not Syrian because they're too good. They used this in Libya to excuse slaughter of black african Libyans (men, women and children) and there's a reason why it's being pushed now.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/benghazi-at...023951522.html

While this odd "film" is supposedly backed by Jewish donors and done deliberately to hit out at Islam, most of the stories related in it are not untrue, Mohammed did sleep with a child (his last wife - can't remember her name) and it's a particularly creepy passage in the Koran where she's playing on a swing and he goes and makes her a woman (in an Irish sense it could mean she went and ironed his jeans).

But the reaction to this is shocking and with the above peace figuring the attacks were too co-ordinated, it shines a sharp light on the US, France, UK and their lapdogs in backing the removal of non-compliant people at the top table. Will only get worse, but at least Syria is now not so interesting for them.

I don't care what they say about Mohammed and I don't care what he did, the behaviour of the protesters is inexcusable.

Just thought, since I'm home and being soaked in US-British-Irish warmongering campaigns that it's worth a bump. I know that the long term goal is revenge for Iran, not to mention access to resources, though the situation in Syria is taking on a real 2003 feeling of insanity. The US are looking for any reason to do a regime change, other countries are looking to get rid of an alternative to fundamentalist islam, meanwhile Russia is being taking out of the equation for being "anti-gay", which is a misrepresentation in the first place. Anyway, looks just like a matter of time before another country falls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudulika

[

So if Syria falls, what else? Israel is scuppered as its neighbours will be looking for the Golan Heights and the homeland of the Jews will be under threat.

---

I honestly can't understand how anyone with knowledge of the history of the Jewish state would think they would be "scuppered" if they were completely surrounded by hostile neighbours. The IDF is light years ahead of all of its neighbours and would positively orgasm at the thought of another Six Day/Yom Kippur style conflict.

I didn't buy into the Libyan intervention, and I certainly don't buy into this proposed Syrian one, especially because he happened to use chemical weapons. The time to intervene was several years ago. Assad has been killing scores and scores of his own civilians since then, but a few chemical shells and suddenly its unacceptable? Give me a break. This Obama-led R2P drive has no logic to me and I'm delighted the British Parliament decided enough was enough, and I only hope the US Congress does the same.

Somebody on facebook linked to an article that made a very valid point, how come the 1400 killed by chemical weapons is a "red line", whereas the 100,000-odd killed by guns and bombs isn't? The victims are still equally dead.

That said, I don't think the West can stand idly by while a situation that is mostly our fault in the first place kills tens of thousands of innocent civilians. I'm fully in favour of peacekeeping missions when they're done properly, the French in Mali being a prime example.

Will be funny when Al Qaeda get the US as their air-force, or not!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peadar1987

Somebody on facebook linked to an article that made a very valid point, how come the 1400 killed by chemical weapons is a "red line", whereas the 100,000-odd killed by guns and bombs isn't? The victims are still equally dead.

That said, I don't think the West can stand idly by while a situation that is mostly our fault in the first place kills tens of thousands of innocent civilians. I'm fully in favour of peacekeeping missions when they're done properly, the French in Mali being a prime example.

---

I don't follow that, Peadar. Why does the West have to get involved? Why is it the West's fault? Surely it is a UN problem, not the West's? The USA seems to think it is the world's policeman. That is the UN's job and if consensus can't be reached, that does not give the West a right to intervene. I don't really get the distinction of being blown apart by a bomb or killed by a chemical weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

I don't follow that, Peadar. Why does the West have to get involved? Why is it the West's fault? Surely it is a UN problem, not the West's? The USA seems to think it is the world's policeman. That is the UN's job and if consensus can't be reached, that does not give the West a right to intervene. I don't really get the distinction of being blown apart by a bomb or killed by a chemical weapon.

---

In my opinion, centuries of interference in the region in order to plunder its resources, same as in Africa. The developed world enjoys prosperity, security, and a very high standard of living, in no small part due to the legacy of empire which is the primary reason for the greater part of the problems in the world today. It's the least the developed world can to in exchange to try and clear up some of the mess we've left behind us.

I'd agree it would be a UN problem, if Russia weren't vetoing any action in Syria for their own selfish agenda. Just because consensus can't be reached doesn't mean sending in a peacekeeping force isn't the right thing to do.

That's the idealistic response. In reality, operations such as Bosnia, where an international force went in to protect civilians, and did a pretty good job of it, with no apparent ulterior motive of profit or geopolitical leverage are sadly in the minority.

It put some hawk beaks out of joint today with the Syrian agreement (it seems) to follow Russia's suggestion and put their chemical weapons under UN/International observation. Something like this could have kept Hussein in power, though that was even more about oil.

NFB - some of the elements moving around the Syrian landscape have some nasty items in their possession, the IFD surprised and crushed rag tag unmotivated armies, it would be a different situation now with the para's and other groups joining in.

And the USA are supplying $26million of weapons to one of the rebel groups, isn't this called taking sides?