Thread: Syria: Not as important as Libya.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Ah yes, those bastions of humanitarianism

I am not sugesting that they are. What I am suggesting is that the "free world", as many people still cling to that rhetoric, is acting as bad, if not worse, TODAY.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

That's precisely why it won't kick off. Even if NATO and the UN wanted to intervene, they know better. It is very much an Arab and regional problem and they are all treating it as such. The sad thing about that is that Assad will continue to execute his own people in a sad effort to cling to power, exactly as Gaddafi did.

See above regarding what "they" are doing TODAY.

You have confirmed evidence of who is shooting who in Syria. I did ask you some days ago but have yet to see an answer.

The Japanese went to war when the world turned it's miltary and economic assets against it 60 odd years ago

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The Lebanese government will not get involved. Iran daren't get involved. And the Palestinians (well the Shi'a ones) don't have much clout. Hezbollah are already involved, they know they're fucked if Syria falls.

There are a lot of is here but my take is that if Syria is attacked the Russians will assist Syria, Russian pilots, Russian air radars, Russian Submarines. The Russians will draft in any Russian federation assets they can.Iran and Iraq plus the satellite Palestinians/Hezbollah will rise up.The other Arab states will rise up against their Emirs. The US/NATO will pull back from the brink.

As you say the Russians, the Chinese and the Persians/Arabs, are barbarians and will not hesitate in using all the weapons, including chemical against their foes.

If these countries do nothing then they will all be picked off one by one as we see there is a definite ability, and intent, for the "free world" to roll them over one by one.

Very well put OhOh,

Assad was made President when he was 34.

There was a Law that minimum age for Presidency in Syria must be 35 at that time, they just changed it to 34 and President he was and is...

^ big fucking deal, and ?

Well looks like the Russkies are a bit upset at losing one big customer:

Russia sending warships to its base in Syria

By Thomas Grove | Reuters – 21 hours ago

• Email
• Print

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia is sending a flotilla of warships to its naval base in Syria in a show of force which suggests Moscow is willing to defend its interests in the strife-torn country as international pressure mounts on President Bashar al-Assad's government.
Arab League sanctions and French calls for the establishment of humanitarian zones in Syria have increased international pressure on Assad to end bloodshed that the United Nations says has killed 3,500 people during nine months of protests against his rule.
Russia, which has a naval maintenance base in Syria and whose weapons trade with Damascus is worth millions of dollars annually, joined China last month to veto a Western-backed U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Assad's government.
Izvestia newspaper reported on Monday, citing retired Russian Admiral Viktor Kravchenko, that Russia plans to send its flagship aircraft carrier the "Admiral Kuznetsov" along with a patrol ship, an anti-submarine craft and other vessels.
"Having any military force apart from NATO is very beneficial for the region as it prevents the outbreak of armed conflict," Kravchenko, who was navy chief of staff from 1998-2005, was quoted as saying by Izvestia.
A navy spokesman quoted by the newspaper confirmed that the Russian warships would head to the maintenance base Russia keeps on the Syrian coast near Tartus but said the trip had nothing to do with the uprising against Assad.
The paper said the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier would be armed with at least eight Sukhoi-33 fighters, several MiG-29K fighters and two helicopters.
It will also have cruise and surface to air missiles, the paper said.
A navy spokesman was not available to comment to Reuters.
Yegor Engelhart, an analyst with Moscow-based defence think-tank CAST, said Moscow did not want its position to be ignored while the Assad government was under pressure.
"At the very least Moscow wants to show that it is willing to defend its interests in Syria," he said
Russian officials say the naval base at Tartus is used for repairs to ships from its Black Sea fleet and Izvestia said about 600 Russian Defence Ministry employees worked there. There are currently no Russian ships there, the paper said.
Russia, a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, abstained from voting on a resolution that paved the way for Western military intervention in Libya but later criticised the mission saying NATO overstepped its mandate and interfered in a civil war.
Russia said it lost of tens of billions of dollars in potential arms deals with Muammar Gaddafi's fall and is loathe to lose another customer in the region. Syria accounted for 7 percent of Russia's total of $10 billion (6.4 billion pounds) in arms deliveries abroad in 2010, according to CAST.
Moscow has traditionally used what influence it still has in the Middle East as a lever in diplomatic manoeuvring with Europe and in particular the United States, Moscow's Cold War foe.
(Reporting by Thomas Grove; Editing by Guy Faulconbridge)

A navy spokesman quoted by the newspaper confirmed that the Russian warships would head to the maintenance base Russia keeps on the Syrian coast near Tartus but said the trip had nothing to do with the uprising against Assad.

Don't make me laugh, Vladimir!

I have to say though, OhOh, you did say (and I've merely edited it to correct a simple typo on your part):

Yes, there is a country called Syria, which has an "elected" government

I think it's one of those governments where 90% of the voters vote against Assad and yet when the results come in he's won with a 90% majority.

In fact, he's stood for election unopposed twice. Does no-one in Syria fancy running against him? I wonder why?

Added:

When the elder Assad died in 2000, Bashar was appointed leader of the Baath-Party and the Army, and was elected president unopposed, what the regime claimed to be a massive popular support (97.2% of the votes), after the Majlis Al Sha'ab (Parliament) swiftly voted to lower the minimum age for candidates from 40 to 34 (Assad's age when he was elected). On 27 May 2007, Bashar was approved as president for another seven-year term, with the official result of 97.6% of the votes in a referendum without another candidate

you know when the Russians back then, known as the USSR, were all paranoid about a US invasion or NATO bombing, they sounded ridiculous,

but now I am starting to suspect they were right all along, the capitalist invaders are real and a clear danger to world peace

And just a tad more:

During its decades of rule, moreover, the Assad family developed a strong political safety net by firmly integrating the military into the regime. In 1970, Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father, seized power after rising through the ranks of the Syrian armed forces, during which time he established a network of loyal Alawites by installing them in key posts. In fact, the military, ruling elite, and ruthless secret police are so intertwined that it is now impossible to separate the Assad regime from the security establishment. Bashar al-Assad’s threat to use force against protesters would be more plausible than Tunisia’s or Egypt’s were. So, unlike in Tunisia and Egypt, where a professionally trained military tended to play an independent role, the regime and its loyal forces have been able to deter all but the most resolute and fearless oppositional activists. In this respect, the situation in Syria is to a certain degree comparable to Saddam Hussein’s strong Sunni minority rule in Iraq.

That's quite a lot of insurgent terrorists right there, isn't it?

Alternatively, it could be:

Demonstrators against Syria's President Bashar al-Assad take part in a march after Friday prayers in Kafranbel near Adlb.

No Tanks, armed "security forcese", pepper spraying police or razor wire to be seen. There are many pro-Assad government supporter pictures available on the web if you would care to post them.

Originally Posted by OhOh

No Tanks, armed "security forcese", pepper spraying police or razor wire to be seen. There are many pro-Assad government supporter pictures available on the web if you would care to post them.

Since I happen to live in a country with a bit of an Arab Spring going on, I can assure you that the pro-Assad protests are probably just as staged as Gaddafi's were.

And while there are none of the things you talk about in the still photograph I posted, there are many examples of Assad's forces using deadly force against civilians available from various sources.

Tell me: Why do you think Assad has banned foreign journalists from reporting from Syria?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I think it's one of those governments where 90% of the voters vote against Assad and yet when the results come in he's won with a 90% majority.

In fact, he's stood for election unopposed twice. Does no-one in Syria fancy running against him? I wonder why?

The people either accept the "democratic" system, one vote per person, "counted" by a responsible organisation and then fiddled by the power brokers or accept a outside force to bomb the current government to pieces, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and have an unelected group of terrorists take control.

I seem to remember jerry rigging of some Florida votes in a US election, vote buying in a UK election...........

To quote: "Independent verification is nigh on impossible, as Syria has expelled most foreign journalists".

Which suits you, because you can carry on with your conspiracy theories whilst denying that Assad's security forces are slaughtering civilians for daring to oppose him.

Originally Posted by OhOh

The people either accept the "democratic" system, one vote per person, "counted" by a responsible organisation

"Responsible organisation"? The Assad government? Are you having a laugh?

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Tell me: Why do you think Assad has banned foreign journalists from reporting from Syria?

My experience of "war" reporting leads me to believe that the media are more interested in supplying propaganda then telling the truth. The last example of this was Libya recently.

Yes, most international reporters were kept in a Government controlled hotel and taken only to the areas still controlled by Gaddafi, were dozens of "loyal citizens" cheered him in in an "impromptu" show of support.

Meanwhile others reported while sheltering in towns being shelled by his forces.

Which one is the propoganda?

I would suggest he doesn't want the world to see what he's up to lest he come under even more pressure to relinquish control. Occam's razor and all that.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

"Responsible organisation"? The Assad government? Are you having a laugh?

I am not sure of who oversaw any election in Syria, what I am suggesting is that many "accepted" election results have been tampered with by the vote gatherers, the counters , the judiciary and finally the politicians in "forming" an unelected coalition government which was not on the ballot paper.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Yes, most international reporters were kept in a Government controlled hotel and taken only to the areas still controlled by Gaddafi, were dozens of "loyal citizens" cheered him in in an "impromptu" show of support.

Meanwhile others reported while sheltering in towns being shelled by his forces.

Others seem to have published "stories" which didn't meet the "proffered" view at the time, but have subsequently been found to be closer to the truth.

Originally Posted by OhOh

I am not sure of who oversaw any election in Syria, what I am suggesting is that many "accepted" election results have been tampered with by the vote gatherers, the counters , the judiciary and finally the politicians in "forming" an unelected coalition government which was not on the ballot paper.

sounds very familiar indeed, I am surprised the British public is not outrage over this

harryb, you should stick to phone reviews, your feeble mind is too prone to western propaganda and marketing hype. I am surprised you are not an apple fan from all this.