Thread: Syria News and Editorials

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Wu Sike said: Respecting a country’s sovereignty is the basic principle of the UN Charter. China has always observed and stressed this principle in dealing with international affairs.

Funny that. I think Tibet should be free. What do you think?

I know what the jolly nice Chinese think.

Without researching every invasion and takeover in the past 100 years I would imagine that there are many countries that have been subsumed into the crusader coalitions's web who would like to be free of the colonisers.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Wu Sike said: Respecting a country’s sovereignty is the basic principle of the UN Charter. China has always observed and stressed this principle in dealing with international affairs.

Funny that. I think Tibet should be free. What do you think?

I know what the jolly nice Chinese think.

Without researching every invasion and takeover in the past 100 years I would imagine that there are many countries that have been subsumed into the crusader coalitions's web who would like to be free of the colonisers.

Didn't answer my question I notice.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by OhOh

Unarmed civilians or terrorists, you decide.

MrAA991's Channel - YouTube

How about armed defectors and armed civilians, trying to protect their neighbourhoods and families? Or are you still denying the existence of the FSA?

Please, you can do better than poorly loaded questions.

If you agree that the "unarmed peacefully demonstrating civilians" are now a terrorist uprising all "accounts" of deaths and genocide by the Syrian Government forces can now be taken with an even larger pinch of salt.

I'm sorry. I thought it was abundantly clear that

(a) not all civilian protestors are involved in the armed uprising, and
(b) The FSA and other armed oppositions consist of both military defectors and civilian "amateurs" (for want of a better word), as the article I posted explains.

You seem to be the only one confused by this.

You seem to be under the impression that a load of "armed gangs" are running around terrorising the Syrian people. Which is exactly what the Syrian government is saying while they continue to shell entire civilian neighbourhoods.

I can't understand why when only one party, which hires international PR companies to spread its lies, and jams international news stations, says this is the truth, and just about everyone else says something different, you would choose to believe the former.

I'll give you your due, you don't let things like facts sway your opinions.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

This article sums up the desperate fragmentation of the "military" part of the Syrian opposition.

What is required is an immediate ceasefire by all parties. A disarming of the terrorists and a return to using unarmed police instead of armed troops to protect all citizens. This could be monitored by a multi national force with enough "equipment" to defend themselves only.

What would be useful if the disparate groups of the "opposition" were to agree on what their solution would be. This should be then tested against the "existing" governments position in an election scenario.

But as this is what the Syrian Government has agreed to, it probably wont happen.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

While you and I may disagree with what can be considered "necessary", that is not "twisting the terms of a No-fly Zone", so please don't try and peddle it as such

You know that the invasion was sold to the world, if not the lawyers, that it was for humanitarian reasons. The instigation of a missile and bombing campaign is not humanitarian assistance in any way.

The "arms embargo" was flouted by the crusader coalition from day one.

Any more lies you wish to discuss?

Bombing Gadafhi's military to stop them shelling the Libyan people comes under the remit of resolution 1973 in my book.

The arms embargo was to Gadafhi's troops.

Next?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I'll give you your due, you don't let things like facts sway your opinions

"Facts", yes Harry those awkward truths than tend to be disclosed after the events when the MSM have moved onto their next "mission" and left the poor civilians to muddle through.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Yemen springs to mind, all left to fester when the "victorious" crusader coalition slink out in the dead of night.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

This article sums up the desperate fragmentation of the "military" part of the Syrian opposition.

What is required is an immediate ceasefire by all parties. A disarming of the terrorists and a return to using unarmed police instead of armed troops to protect all citizens. This could be monitored by a multi national force with enough "equipment" to defend themselves only.

What would be useful if the disparate groups of the "opposition" were to agree on what their solution would be. This should be then tested against the "existing" governments position in an election scenario.

But as this is what the Syrian Government has agreed to, it probably wont happen.

Can you name me one thing that the Syrian Government has agreed to do that it has actually implemented?

If Assad agreed to allow - and allowed - opposition parties and free and fair elections, this would be over in short order.

In fact, if he did that, the existing government could maintain civil order and allow for a peaceful transition to democracy. This is what should have happened in Egypt, and in fact has now been accelerated by the public's anger at the military government's foot dragging.

Obviously the Syrian government will never allow this to happen; their position as an unwanted oligarchy means they will lose power at the first election.

Do you disagree?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Obviously the Syrian government will never allow this to happen; their position as an unwanted oligarchy means they will lose power at the first election.

Do you disagree?

They have stated that the route map will be followed, a revision of the constitution, an election to be held - under the new constitution and they have stated a time frame for these proposals.

I think the crusader coalition has allowed the terrorist government of Libya a year for this process. During that allotted year there is still killing occurring but no clamour for an official invasion, just extra effort to get the oil flowing.

I don't know what the strengths of the "parties" are and can't comment on the outcome of any election.

Syria: US says military options 'may not be avoidable'
Thu 9 Feb 2012



As diplomacy founders, and shelling of Homs continues, 'the window is closing' on Assad

AMID intense diplomatic efforts to halt the shelling by the Syrian regime of civilians in the rebel stronghold of Homs, the United States reportedly believes that a "militarisation" of the situation might no longer be avoidable.
A senior State Department official told The Daily Telegraph that the Russian-Chinese veto of a UN resolution condemning the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad (above) had made military involvement more likely.

"The decision-makers have not determined we are at a point of no return," the official admitted, but he warned that "the window is closing" and that nothing was off the table.

"We definitely don't want to militarise the situation," he said. "If it's avoidable we are going to avoid it. But increasingly it looks like it may not be avoidable.

"There is always hope that this can be solved without it turning into a full-scale civil war and without the use of force, but it really involves Bashar al-Assad receiving the wake-up call."

The Pentagon is reportedly reviewing its military capabilities in the region. While Senator John McCain, the former presidential candidate, has called for the US to arm the opposition Free Syrian Army, others have suggested setting up a safe haven or a humanitarian corridor. These last two options would require military involvement to protect civilians and aid workers.

White House spokesman Jay Carney yesterday refused to rule out arming the Syrian opposition. He said that the US would meet in the near future with international partners to discuss halting the violence and delivering humanitarian aid.

Turkey is also planning an international conference of regional and world powers, Al Jazeera reports, while the Arab League says it wants to resume its observer mission, which it suspended last month because of the violence.

Meanwhile in Homs, opposition activists say Assad is pouring reinforcements into the city, which is under bombardment for the fifth day in a row. They told Reuters that 40 tanks, 50 infantry vehicles and 1,000 soldiers had moved in - suggesting that Assad's assurances to Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday that he was "completely committed to the task of stopping violence" were hollow. ·

theweek.co.uk

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Obviously the Syrian government will never allow this to happen; their position as an unwanted oligarchy means they will lose power at the first election.

Do you disagree?

They have stated that the route map will be followed, a revision of the constitution, an election to be held - under the new constitution and they have stated a time frame for these proposals.

I think the crusader coalition has allowed the terrorist government of Libya a year for this process. During that allotted year there is still killing occurring but no clamour for an official invasion, just extra effort to get the oil flowing.

I don't know what the strengths of the "parties" are and can't comment on the outcome of any election.

And you know why no-one believes them? Because they said the were going to reform almost a year ago. And they haven't.

What has changed, apart from their murderous rampage against their own population, to make you think they can be trusted now?

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Obviously the Syrian government will never allow this to happen; their position as an unwanted oligarchy means they will lose power at the first election.

Do you disagree?

They have stated that the route map will be followed, a revision of the constitution, an election to be held - under the new constitution and they have stated a time frame for these proposals.

I think the crusader coalition has allowed the terrorist government of Libya a year for this process. During that allotted year there is still killing occurring but no clamour for an official invasion, just extra effort to get the oil flowing.

I don't know what the strengths of the "parties" are and can't comment on the outcome of any election.

It's a very simple equation. 90% of the population are Sunnis, and the Alawites (Shi'a) have all the power.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to predict the outcome of a free and fair election.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

This guy keeps popping up in all the various newscasts - yet he's not a spokesperson for the so-called Free Syrian Army. IMO he has Hill and Knowlton paycheque written all over him - what do you think, ThaiHome? See the video at 00:56 - 01:12.

BBC News - People in Homs feel trapped, says the BBC's Paul Wood

Wow, such paranoia. You don't think the Syrians want him to be the spokesperson because he speaks excellent English, do you?

BEIRUT — Two explosions struck compounds housing security services in the Syrian city of Aleppo on Friday, reportedly killing 28 people and wounding 238 in the worst violence to hit the country’s relatively calm commercial capital since the uprising began last March.
The attacks coincided with the continuation of an offensive against the central city of Homs, where activists claim hundreds have been killed in the sustained bombardment of neighborhoods loyal to the opposition during the past week.



As the bombardment in Homs and other Syrian cities appeared to be intensifying, a top U.N. official condemned Bashar al-Assad's government crackdown against protesters and the E.U. was threatening fresh sanctions. (Feb. 8)



The attacks in Aleppo, reported by state media, pointed to the danger that the violence now gripping the country will escalate and spread even as the government seeks to crush the revolt against President Bashar al-Assad’s rule.
The official news agency SANA said two “terrorist” attacks targeted a military security branch and a law enforcement headquarters in the center of Aleppo, a mostly middle-class mercantile city whose citizens have largely refrained from taking part in the mass anti-government demonstrations that have swept much of the rest of the country.
But in recent weeks there have been signs that the unrest is reaching into Aleppo, with protests erupting in several suburbs and some city neighborhoods as unhappiness grows with the levels of violence being used by the government to suppress its opponents elsewhere.
The Free Syrian Army, the fledgling rebel army that has strengthened as the opposition increasingly resorts to arms, recently announced it had formed an Aleppo battalion.
Free Syrian Army spokesman Col. Malik al-Kurdi denied that rebels had carried out the bombings, but he said Free Syrian army soldiers had staged attacks against Syrian security forces immediately beforehand.
“While our soldiers were withdrawing, the explosions took place,” he said. “We don’t know what really happened. It could be that their bombs and ammunition blew up or that they staged the explosions to imply that the Free Syrian Army has sophisticated explosives.”
The attacks echoed a similar double bombing against security force branches on Dec. 23 in Damascus, which was attributed to suicide bombers and killed 44 people. Twenty-six more died in a bombing Jan. 6 that targeted police outside a mosque where protests typically occur.
The government blamed al-Qaeda for those attacks, but the opposition accused the authorities of carrying them out to taint the protest movement.


Link

February 10, 2012, 10:30 amCrisis in Syria Looks Very Different on Satellite Channels Owned by Russia and Iran

By ROBERT MACKEYVideo said to have been recorded by Syrian activists during an assault by government forces on the Baba Amr district of the city of Homs on Thursday.
As my colleague Neil MacFarquhar reports, the flood of video documenting atrocities in Syria has intensified in the past 24 hours, with gruesome images broadcast on state television following bomb blasts in the city of Aleppo and more clips posted online by opposition activists of the assault on besieged neighborhoods of Homs.
On Friday, state media reports, featuring graphic views of corpses, blamed the bombing of military and police targets in Aleppo on “terrorists.” A spokesman for the Free Syrian Army, an opposition group of military defectors, denied involvement and called the explosions a cynical government ploy to draw attention from the bombardment of Homs.
A day earlier, residents of Homs told The Times by telephone that there had been no pause in the shelling of contested neighborhoods by government forces. To illustrate the assault on Homs, opposition activists uploaded a stream of video to the Web featuring now-familiar images of .
While that amateur video, recorded and distributed by activists, seems to have the ring of truth for many observers watching the crisis unfold in cities that are largely off limits to foreign reporters, the conflict looks quite different to viewers of two English-language satellite channels owned by the governments of Syria’s allies, Russia and Iran.
On those channels, the conflict in Syria is presented largely the same way that it has been since the start of the uprising by Syria’s own, state-run media, as an assault on a legitimate government with popular support by groups of armed terrorists.
So, for example, on Thursday made no use of activist video, but focused instead on the claim that a leader of the rebel Free Syrian Army in Homs was killed by government forces. In the Press TV report, the commander said to have been killed, Abdul Razzaq Talas, a military defector, was described as “the ringleader of the so-called Al Farouk militant group.”
While activists describe Al Farouk as a brigade of the Free Syrian Army, defending protesters from government forces, the Iranian channel’s Web site reported that the “militant group” was “blamed for terrorist attacks against civilians and security and military forces in Syria.”
Russia Today, a Kremlin-financed channel that finds fault with Vladimir V. Putin’s government about as often as Fox News produces exposés on the Republican Party, also presents the situation in Syria as a conflict between armed groups, not a government crackdown on what started as a peaceful protest movement. Unlike the Iranian channel, the Russian network does acknowledge the claims of activists, although it also regularly broadcasts interviews with pundits who deride the opposition as terrorists.
On Friday, for instance, on the bombings in Aleppo treated as absolute fact a disputed claim of responsibility from what was described as a Syrian rebel source, and then cut to a young, British correspondent who spent several weeks in Syria recently for comment.
The network’s anchor began the interview by asking: “The Free Syrian Army now claiming responsibility for these enormous blasts in Syria today, do you think there’s any chance that could change NATO states’ attitudes towards the armed opposition groups in the country?” The reporter, a contributor to both Russia Today and Press TV named Lizzie Phelan replied: “I would say that this attack was directed from London, Tel Aviv, Paris and New York.”
One day earlier, from a correspondent in London claimed that activists from the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights were intentionally feeding news organizations “false information” about civilian casualties. A pundit featured in the report suggested that the activists were engaged in a media campaign to tarnish the government of President Bashar al-Assad in order to justify armed intervention and bring about “regime change.”
Unlike other news organizations that have sent correspondents into contested areas of Syria, evading government restrictions at great personal risk to their safety, most of Russia Today’s coverage of events in Syria seems to rely on updates from correspondents who are interviewed from studios in Damascus and screen no original video.
In on Wednesday, a Russia Today anchor in Moscow interviewed a woman in a Damascus studio identified as “a local correspondent” named Diana Nemeh, whose only source of information appeared to be statements from the Syrian government on its operations against “terrorists” in the city.
As video of explosions in the city uploaded to the Web by activists played in the background, Ms. Nemeh, who appears to have no previous record as a journalist for English-language news organizations, said that there had been “fierce fighting” between the Free Syrian Army and the military in the city. She added that the Syrian government “has reported many casualties on the ground that have fallen dead in the last few days in Homs.”
Then, after a headline flashed up on the screen reading, “Reporter: Disinformation Makes it Difficult to Establish Homs Reality,” the correspondent in Damascus said, “It’s really hard to determine what’s really going on on the ground there.”
After acknowledging that activists “say that the Syrian military has basically bombed some parts of the city,” Ms. Nemeh quickly added: “the government has completely refuted any type of involvement — that they have actually shelled on its own people in the city of Homs — they blame it on the terrorist groups that have taken an active role in the city. They are spread all over the place there and causing many casualties. The government has also issued many statements today that the security forces were able to kill tens of terrorists that belong to these terrorist groups that they also believe, that are being backed by foreign influence on the ground.”
The rest of the channel’s report consisted entirely of a recitation of comments by Mr. Putin and the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, warning other countries that military intervention on behalf of the opposition would only lead to more violence. The effect of continued Russian arms sales to the Syrian government were not mentioned.
While restrictions imposed by the Syrian government on reporting inside the country do make it difficult to verify the authenticity of claims by activists, other television networks, like the BBC, have managed to send reporters to Homs and other besieged towns to gather information and report on the situation firsthand. The coverage of the conflict on Press TV and Russia Today, by contrast, relies so heavily on interviews with correspondents seated in studios in Damascus — whose information varies little, if at all, from that on Syrian state television — that it often seems closer to ideologically driven punditry than impartial news gathering.
Before Ms. Nemeh filled that role, Ms. Phelan was featured in several reports for the networks from Damascus during her visit to the city, which lasted weeks. Early last month, Ms. Phelan also appeared as a guest . In that interview she described how impressed she had been by the spectacle of a government-organized rally in support of President Bashar al-Assad and called BBC and Al Jazeera reports focused on unrest in the country misleading.
Ms. Phelan, 25, worked as a correspondent for both networks in Libya last year, where she earned the hatred of opposition activists for a series of reports in which she defended the Qaddafi government. Even as Tripoli fell to the Libyan rebels in late August, Ms. Phelan insisted in that video of rebel advances was not genuine, and had been fabricated by Al Jazeera as part of “the media conspiracy against Libya.”
Ms. Phelan explained in an interview with The Lede last week that she visited Damascus in January to work on a documentary with a cameraman from Iran’s semiofficial Fars news agency, which is close to the Islamic Republican Guard Corps, but reported for Press TV and Russia Today in her spare time.
During her time in Syria, Ms. Phelan claimed in a series of interviews with the channels that information supplied by the Syrian government was credible, while opposition reports were fabricated. In from the Syrian capital, Ms. Phelan said that claims of violence by the security forces came only from activists “linked to Western intelligence services.”
In that Qatar had launched a “media war” to topple Mr. Assad.
She also claimed in that interview that a BBC report from the town of Zabadani that day, which showed that it was under rebel control, was false because, she said, she had driven there the night before and was told by Syrian forces that there were no rebels. Despite the fact that the BBC report featured Jeremy Bowen, a vastly experienced correspondent, in Zabadani, Ms. Phelan provided no video of her own journey to support her claim that the British network — which is state-financed but editorially independent — was wrong. (My colleague Kareem Fahim also visited Zabadani the next day and reported from there that Syrian troops had indeed withdrawn from the town, leaving it in rebel hands.)
In a recent conversation with The Lede, Ms. Phelan defended her work for the Russian and Iranian government channels, which she says are immune to the “Western cultural imperialism,” that drives British and American news organizations, including The Times and the BBC, bent “criminalizing independent and sovereign states of the global south like Iran, like the government of Ahmadinejad, like Syria, like Venezuela, like China, like Russia.” She also scoffed at the notion that it was her responsibility to provide evidence to support her claim that a French journalist, Gilles Jacquier, was killed by rebel shelling in Homs last month while on a government-guided media tour.
In the interview Ms. Phelan, who had elected not to take part in that tour of Homs, repeated several assertions she made in published recently by the Voltaire Network, a Web site edited by a French intellectual who claims that the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington were staged by the United States.

OhOh, that's one of your favourite sites, isn't it?





Link

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

...
bunch of crap
...

You don't think the Syrians want him to be the spokesperson because he speaks excellent English, do you?
...

Not sure if stupid or just trolling

Anyway please continue. Your brain farts very entertaining.

Russia voices support for Syria - Middle East - World - The Independent

"Russian politicians voiced strong support today for the Kremlin's action to shield Syrian president Bashar Assad's regime from international sanctions over its crackdown on an 11-month old uprising.

Politicians in the lower house of parliament debated a statement on the situation in Syria that warned against foreign military intervention and accused the West and the Arab nations of trying to change the regime in Syria.

Alexei Pushkov, the head of the State Duma's foreign affairs committee, said Russia strongly opposes another "operation to promote democracy".

"We are against using humanitarian reasons to change the regime," Mr Pushkov said before the session.

Russia and China used their veto power at the UN Security Council to block a resolution urging Assad to step down. The move came even as the Syrian government forces intensified their crackdown and drew strong international condemnation.

Russia has vowed not to allow a replay of Libyan strategy, where foreign military airstrikes backed by a UN resolution helped oust the long-time leader Muammar Gaddafi. Moscow had abstained from a UN vote that cleared the way for the military intervention.

Russia has warned that it would block any UN resolution on Syria that leaves open a possibility of foreign military intervention.

"We must not allow a regime change there initiated by other countries," said Maxim Rokhmistrov, a senior member of the ultra-nationalist Liberal-Democratic Party. "Russia must preserve its presence and influence in the Middle East."

Russia has continued to ship weapons to Syria, its last remaining ally in the region, even as Assad unleashed his crackdown on protesters that has killed thousands of people since the uprising began in March.

Moscow has maintained close ties with Damascus since the Cold War, when it was led by the current leader's father, Hafez Assad."

A few remarks about the article.

1. Russia appears to have a parliament where issues are debated, no mention of a vote or whether the vote would be binding on the government. This appears to be in contrast to the crusader coalition members whose "democratically elected parliaments" or in the case of the GCC countries, dictatorships, have not found the time to discuss this important issue either within the elected chambers or the unelected appointed chambers.

2. Names of "political leaders" have been printed in the article instead of "unnamed" sources of fabricated "unconfirmed" reporters.

3. No mention of the financing the terrorists, arms shipments to the terrorists or the armed forces awaiting in neighbouring countries/floating in and under the Med.

*** score

Diplomacy: Assad is not firing artillery at civilians, claims Russia - Middle East - World - The Independent

"There is no proof that Bashar al-Assad's regime is using its heavy weapons to bombard Homs, the Russian Foreign Minister is said to have declared yesterday. Sergei Lavrov's comments on the besieged city came during a telephone conversation with the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, as the Syrian opposition reported dozens more dead and injured.

During the half-hour conversation, Mr Lavrov – according to senior diplomatic sources – stated that Mr Assad had assured him he was not using heavy weapons in urban conflict zones like Homs and had no intention of doing so. The television images of killings and destruction showed just one side of the story, Mr Lavrov held.

Mr Hague is said to have assured Mr Lavrov that "Syria was not Libya" and that the UK has no intention of a military entanglement. He raised the issue of continuing arms sales by Moscow to the Assad regime, which drew the riposte from Mr Lavrov that this was not illegal.

Mr Lavrov, who visited Damascus on Tuesday, defended the use of the veto, along with China, to block a UN resolution calling on Mr Assad to stop attacks on his own people and step down. The Foreign Minister insisted that the removal of the Syrian President cannot be a precondition for a negotiated end to the strife.

In the Commons, David Cameron was dismissive of Russia's unilateral attempt at a diplomatic intervention, saying he had "very little confidence" it would end the fighting. He told MPs the international community had now to work with Syrian opposition groups to co-ordinate a response to the Assad regime."

Two hats willy assures the Russian Foreign Minister of tow critical items during a telephone call but he was not able to include fact into the UNSC resolution.

1. that the UK has no intention of a military entanglement
2. that the removal of the Syrian President cannot be a precondition for a negotiated end

The present UK Prime Minister states that " the international community had now to work with Syrian opposition groups to co-ordinate a response".

What has he been doing for the last eleven months of this appalling situation.

When will this international community and the Syrian opposition groups be able to achieve a united front and issue a declaration of their solution.

Originally Posted by gas

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

...
bunch of crap
...

You don't think the Syrians want him to be the spokesperson because he speaks excellent English, do you?
...

Not sure if stupid or just trolling

Anyway please continue. Your brain farts very entertaining.

You're the one coming to an absurd conclusion - once again - with no facts whatsoever.

Originally Posted by OhOh

^^I don't believe it, different views/reports from different TV stations. What is the world coming to!!

Reporters saying another reporter is a liar, what a revelation.

"State sponsored" propaganda, where will it all end.

Put them in a ring together and bet on the outcome.

Not one quote from one of the "political leaders", "politicians" is so passé. Just a load of MSM bitches.

Not "different" TV stations.

Press TV and RT, both of whom are protecting Assad's government at the expense of Syrian lives.

#96 and #97 can be disregarded, as Russia will say anything to protect it's $4billion arms deals and it's only foreign Naval base.

"There is no proof that Bashar al-Assad's regime is using its heavy weapons to bombard Homs, the Russian Foreign Minister is said to have declared yesterday.

And frankly this is just fucking embarrassing, right up there with Comical Ali's "There are not American troops in Baghdad".