Wednesday, March 21, 2012

The Statement on Syria at the UN- Did the west blink?

For however briefly? Is this buying time?
I am not sure exactly... what it isn't is big news. Or even new.
Read on and you will understand where I am coming from-



We have news of a “statement” being signed at the UN. It is odd to read some of the western media reporting.
Like this headline..: Russia aligns with UN on urging Syria to accept peace plan

Did Russia align with the UN?
From where I sit the answer is NO.
Why?
Had Russia aligned with the UN, actually aligned with the UN, this would have been a Security Council Resolution and the UN would have quickly endorsed an attack.
This is not what happened.
It is however the spin on the situation. Which is clear if one bothers to do more then headline skim.

“Although the original Western-drafted statement had to be diluted at Russia’s demand”


Like I said... the West diluted to meet Russia’s demands. But as we will see, not Russia's alone.
The western media then proceeds to spin this as a blow to Assad
I am not so sure about that.
What the West agreed to is a watered down statement, a so-called “presidential statement,” which is a generally non-binding document that nonetheless require unanimous support in the Security Council. So it is an agreement to a statement of conditions.

Hillary Clinton “hailed” the statement signing

That is not really a surprise. In the world of politics, everything has to be spun in the best light possible. What is she really going to say, dammit we couldn’t get our war on? That would be to obvious. I also note by her choice of words she is keeping to the bogus narrative
‘"We are also calling on the Syrian military to refuse orders to fire on their fellow citizens,"

Note to Hillary, as you are aware, the Syrian military is not targeting their fellow citizens
They are being targeted by your NATO goons.

I am curious about this six point plan, which coincidentally or not, China was promoting at the beginning of the March- and curiously or not was welcomed at that time by Syria
China's Peace Plan for Syria

Six-Point Plan as reported by the official Xinhua News Agency


1. The Syrian Government and all parties concerned should immediately, fully and unconditionally cease all acts of violence, particularly violence against innocent civilians. Various factions in Syria should express political aspirations through non-violent means.

Are the NATO destabilizers going to go along with this?

2. The Syrian Government and various factions should bear in mind the long-term and fundamental interests of their country and people, immediately launch an inclusive political dialogue with no preconditions attached or outcome predetermined through impartial mediation of the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations (U.N.) and the Arab League (AL) agree on a comprehensive and detailed road-map and timetable for reform through consultation and implement them as soon as possible with a view to restoring national stability and public order.

3. China supports the U.N.' s leading role in coordinating humanitarian relief efforts. China maintains that under the precondition of respecting Syria's sovereignty, the U.N. or an impartial body acceptable to all parties should make an objective and comprehensive assessment of the humanitarian situation in Syria, ensure the delivery and distribution of humanitarian aid. China is ready to provide humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people. We oppose anyone interfering in Syria' s internal affairs under the pretext of "humanitarian" issues.

4. Relevant parties of the international community should earnestly respect the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Syria and the right of the Syrian people to independently choose their political system and development path, create conditions and provide necessary and constructive assistance for the various political factions of Syria to launch dialogue, and respect the outcome of dialogue. China does not approve of armed interference or pushing for "regime change" in Syria, and believes that use or threat of sanctions does not help to resolve this issue appropriately.

5. China welcomes the appointment of the Joint Special Envoy on the Syrian crisis by the U.N .and the AL and supports him in playing a constructive role in bringing about the political resolution of the crisis. China supports the active efforts made by the Arab states and the AL to promote a political solution to the crisis.

6. Members of the Security Council should strictly abide by the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter and the basic norms governing international relations. As a permanent member of the Security Council, China is ready to earnestly fulfill its responsibilities, engage in equal-footed, patient and full consultation with other parties on the political solution to the Syrian crisis in an effort to safeguard the unity of the Security Council.

As stated above- Syria welcomes China's six-point statement for political resolution on the Syrian issue: Chinese envoy

Of course the six point Chinese plan/Syrian welcoming of it, didn’t get any western coverage at the time it was taking place.

In my opinion this is what was adopted at the UN.
China’s Peace Plan already pre- welcomed by Syria.
It looks as if the West blinked. But, for how long?
Did the West agree to this "statement" to buy some time as their war games and terrorists were unable to secure necessary territory etc?

As most of us are aware Human Rights Watch came out very timidly mentioning the fact that the rebels are torturing Syrians. Hilary failed to mention that.

As for HRW...what choice did they have? Retain a sliver of credibility or lose it all?
In my book, they have no credibility. The backed killers in Libya, aided in the destruction of that nation and they did the same kind of weak face saving tactic. Human Rights Watch is exactly that, a watch group. And what good is that really? Weak kneed and malleable.



A rebel fighters wires pipe bombs.

43 comments:

  1. Hey Penny. Thanks for bringing the subject up and giving me the opportunity to discuss it.

    As you probably guessed, I disagree with your interpretation.

    I suspect Russia has already greenlighted war and the evidence keeps proving me correct (imho).

    Russia is not going to advertise the fact they are allowing Syria (and Lebanon and Iran) to be attacked by the West. They will pretend that they are taking some steps to protect Syria.

    The Russians have a fine line to walk. They need to convince their people that they are standing up to the West--especially the Christians that are fond of Syria or other Russians that are favorable to Syria because of the historical connections. Plus, Russia will pretend to be opposing the fascists of the West to string liberals in the West along. In short, Russia serves the same purpose as the Democrats or the Labor party, etc., they provide the sense of opposition but can be counted on to not truly oppose the fascists.

    We saw a similar pattern in Libya.

    In the same light I think the triumphalism I saw at places like Moon of Alabama is misplaced. This is no Syrian or Assad victory.

    The West is committed to attacking Syria. This is nothing but diplomatic and political cover. It's all fake. Russia is pretending like they are taking steps to stop the attack but all they are doing is building up their bona fides as the sincere opposition and stringing people along.

    Kofi Annan is not sincere. If Russia truly wanted to defend Syria it would have vetoed this resolution. It would not agree that "both sides" are responsible and would instead call this foreign sponsored terrorism and a coup attempt by the West. Russia would also send troops and say the treaty it has with Syria may require military defense. It would be moving military assets, etc., etc.

    This has all the hallmarks of a sellout . . . in disguise. Of course they are not going to announce a sellout right away. They will follow the same plan of meek opposition to the West while claiming the high ground of "both sides are to blame."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey WWM
      This isn't really a resolution..it is a statement and technically a non-binding one.

      So politically speaking it doesn't hurt the Russians or the Chinese to play these diplomatic games.
      As the western media was quick to point out, but, twisting the nature of what the agreement was and who actually watered down what...

      As for the both sides to blame- while Russia has spoken of the Syrian governments actions as flawed the have been unflinching in condemning the "rebels" something Hilary still has not even made mention of

      This can be interpreted a number of ways, I agree.

      Delete
    2. Both China and Russia made statements early this year, (only saw it one place, once) that they would not jeapordize their national interests for an ally who in no way was integral to their own existential survival- which is logical. Their Statements went by completely unnoted. But their behavior has born this out long before- esp Russia. Unfortunate, because certainly once Iran is out, Russias superpower days are over and China soon after. The west will be in for the final carveup and map change into many tiny mini-states. Of course Russia and China as modern states are Rothschild creations to begin with and answer to their tune. So the merry go round seems endless.

      Delete
    3. Agreed Walt.
      Putin, Russia are fake opposition to American Imperialism. Bushbama is a puppet to higher powers just like Putin.

      The meme that the UN is a liberal money pit is very popular with right wing nuts and Harperites. The slow messy process of sanctions, no fly zones, and resolutions brings out all sorts of rabid right wingers slamming the "pacifist" UN. The China and Russia fake opposition further angers the right wing nuts. The Obama crowd is all in for another peace war and is very dismayed and disappointed in "evil" Russia and China.
      Controlling the sheep involves confusing them first and foremost.

      Agreed also on your Syria/Iran speculation.
      That oft used German WW2 quote about first they came for the Jews, then they came for the.....
      That sure seems to apply to war on Iran. First they attacked Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Yemen, then Somalia, then Libya, then Syria.........so by the time they came for Iran there was no one left. Our banking and military cartels got to make money and run their bomb factories in a more controlled manageable fashion over the last 10 years than if they had gone all out at Iran early in the game.
      They play war chess, we play peace checkers.
      Heywood

      Delete
    4. i guess walt hates russia

      Delete
  2. The reason wht an attack has not happened is because as yet the USA/Israel/NATO do not know the true capabilities of Iran. Iran is the prize the initial thought was to get Iran through Syria but it has proved more difficult. Now they will attack Iran and Syria will enter because it will no choice so they think they will destroy Iran, Syria, Hezbollah (Hamas?). I am not so sure about Walter Wit Man analysis of Russia. The ROC has drawn a line not the weasels of Putin and the Kremlin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Anonymous that Iran is probably the big threat. My assumption is that Syria and Iran are coordinating their defenses and are writing off Russian help. I have heard little since the report that Iran was sending troops to Syria and wonder if there is other information about their mutual defense.

      Re Russia: Why would Putin and the Kremlin want draw a line? Isn't it more effective if they let others draw a line and then pretend to be holding them back? Don't you agree that the Russian people support Syria so if Putin and Russia were selling Syria down the river they wouldn't advertise this fact?

      The whole good cop, bad cop routine has been very effective over the years. It will actually be MORE effective for Russia to give half support to Syria.

      Plus, why wouldn't Russia veto this measure? All they are doing is building up pressure on Syria, and we know the West only wants to relieve that pressure in one way, war. Plus, Russia is simply justifying the false Western claims when it puts pressure on Syria for its crimes. Why not make the same claims that we are making on this blog?! That the West and its media are lying!

      Delete
    2. And by "threat", I meant "prize." Iran is the big prize.

      Or at least it will complete the collection. Just look how this Arab Spring, and the wars of the last 10 years, have drastically changed the region.

      In one year time I bet the Syrian and Iranian governments are toppled and Hezbollah is weakened as well (don't know about Hamas--are they already controlled or boxed in??). Most of the Middle East will have been changed in 10 years.

      And looks like North Africa is next. Sudan, Somalia, Chad, and Uganda all look like ripe prizes as well.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 12:06

      I agree that Iran is the ultimate goal in the Syrian take down.
      "Iran is the prize the initial thought was to get Iran through Syria but it has proved more difficult. Now they will attack Iran and Syria"

      All the oil and the strategic position for the pipeline.
      Nabucco pipeline- I have a number of posts here on the topic of pipelines and the political machinations that surround them

      Nabucco is the competitor to Russia's Southstream
      And Iran is pivotal to both

      http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2011/06/nabucco-and-southstream-competing.html

      The West is desperate for Iranian oil as the supplier of Nabucco

      Russia may have been interested in Iran not just as a supplier but also transporting with a possible pass on through Syria to connect with China

      "But Washington's geopolitics won't invalidate the participation of Iran if the NATO "world army" takes down Syria and then moves on to Iran?"

      As mentioned at that time. So Iran is a prize to both Russia and the US.

      Delete
  3. The UN-Annan 6 point plan is published in the Telegraph and its not the same as the Chinese plan. The main differences I see at first past is that the UN plan says nothing about recognizing Syria's sovereignty, and they put restrictions on troop movements. Of course it all seems fairly reasonable but we all know the interpretation will be highly one-sided.

    West to launch package war in Middle East - "The West will launch a package war against Iran, Syria and Hezbollah as soon as they decide what to do with the Iranian nuclear program, Abdel Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of a London-based Arabic newspaper told RT in an interview.
    Atwan also believes the West is not intervening in Syria because they are waiting to decide whether they are going to bomb Iran or not."
    Hard to see how that wouldn't escalate into WWIII, unless Russia & China are on-board.

    This might be a bad omen - Putin purchased US recognition of victory – say Communists. Thin end of a wedge?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From freethinker's linked article:

      "Zyuganov’s party (KPRF) also issued a statement where they slam the plan to allow NATO to use Ulyanovsk Air Base for the transit of non-lethal cargos from Afghanistan to Europe. The second-largest political force in Russia accused the ruling power of acting in the interests of the West.

      The Communists believe that the presence of foreign military contingent at the very heart of Russia (and the birthplace of revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin) could pose a threat to the country’s national security.

      n addition, the party fears that the new transit hub could open a new channel for drug-trafficking from Afghanistan to Russia, and, also open a gate for illegal import of weapons.

      The deal between Moscow and the alliance has not been finalized yet, but the negotiations have reached their final stage, a source in the Russian Foreign Ministry told Kommersant daily."

      The officials defend this agreement with NATO for a "NATO base" because they claim it is delivering non military goods, like toilet paper, they joke. But isn't toilet paper war still used to support the troops attacking Syria? Would the U.S. draw such a distinction of activists were sending toilet paper to Hizbullah, for instance?

      Furthermore, Putin and the Russians allowed NATO to use its former bases in Central Asia when it attacked Afghanistan after 9/11. So this must be an additional military base they are allowing the use of, right? And is there a distinction between military/non-military usage of these bases? I don't think so.

      And if Russia really wanted to prevent drugs coming into Russia it would never have supported the American attack of Afghanistan. Drug cultivation was nearly eradicated under the Taliban but has flourished under American control. I don't suspect if Russian elite benefit from the drug trade in a similar way that the Americans do. Have the secret governments of both these countries decided to divide the drug profits?

      Delete
    2. Hey Freethinker!

      at the end

      "The Security Council calls upon the Syrian government and opposition to work in good faith with the Envoy towards a peaceful settlement of the Syrian crisis and to implement fully and immediately his initial six-point proposal."

      is this not the beginning of the chinese proposal?
      More or less?

      Also what do you make of the news Russia has moved special ops to Dagestan-??

      Delete
    3. WWM Africa and it's control is already begun

      See Sudan, Egypt, Libya
      Also Ethiopia, Nigeria

      All running concurrently to what is going on in the ME

      Delete
  4. link to article on Dagestan
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-19/russia-deploying-troops-for-temporary-dagestan-reinforcement-1-.html

    Russia is sending a “temporary detachment” of troops into the southern region of Dagestan, whose border lies about 200 kilometers (124 miles) north of Iran, to combat terrorism, the Interior Ministry said.

    “We are talking about a temporary deployment and coordination to prevent and counter terrorism and extremism across the whole territory of Dagestan,” Vyacheslav Makhmudov, a spokesman for the regional Interior Ministry, said from the republic’s capital city, Makhachkala

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am also going to relink this post regarding Assad and his four seas plan


    http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2011/06/assads-four-seas-strategy-damascus.html

    I think that these plans would have cut Israel out of the oil picture and made Syria quite strategically important plus Syria was willing to deliver to China...

    Which may have become a problem?


    This oil was going to transit to China...
    But then Iran

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 4 Seas plan was an irritant but little more. The plans to destroy Syria and Iran came decades before this Seas plan was even imagined. The puppetmasters think in 50-100 year blocs ahead.
      The refusal to accurately deal with the real sponsors and beneficiary of the new ME leads to citing side effects and tangential causes. Region was pegged to be taken apart and redrawn decades ago by and for jewish state.

      Delete
  6. And then there is this. I am not sure what to make of this?

    Two days ago
    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/russian-anti-terror-troops-arrive-syria/story?id=15954363

    A Russian military unit has arrived in Syria, according to Russian news reports, a development that a United Nations Security Council source told ABC News was "a bomb" certain to have serious repercussions.

    RIA Novosti, a news outlet with strong ties to the Kremlin, trumpeted the news in a banner headline that appeared only on its Arabic language website.

    One day ago- Russia and Syria both deny the news..
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/russia-denies-it-sent-anti-terror-unit-to-syria/

    At a press conference in Moscow today Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called the reports “fairy tales” and said the Russian tanker Iman that arrived at the Mediterranean port had a security team on board only to guard against pirate attacks as it transited the Gulf of Aden.

    “Like any other civilian support vessel taking part in the counter-piracy operation, this tanker is carrying security units that will not allow pirates to seize this tanker or any other civilian vessel in the Gulf of Aden in the event of an attack,” the minister said, according to the Russian Interfax news agency.

    At the very least I would think Russia would have reinforced security already present at the Port of Tartous??



    Syria denied the rumours.
    which I would expect they would no matter what happened
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9155456/Syria-rejects-rumours-of-Russian-anti-terrorism-mission-landing.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Freethinker is exactly right; the two six point plans are very different.

    The UN plan is nothing but a bunch of weasel words aimed at compromising Syria's sovereignty and ability to defend itself. The Syrian Govt would need to have rocks in their collective heads to agree to the UN plan. If I have time tonight I'll deconstruct it sentence by sentence.

    The news of NATO transiting toilet paper, drugs and god knows what else through Russia is very worrying too. Good catch Freethinker

    ReplyDelete
  8. Google seems to have eaten my last comment. If it shows up later, please forgive some repetition.

    The reference to Syria's sovereignty in the Telegraph article in in the reprint of the UN press release of March 1st. It does not appear in the '6 point plan' released on the 16th March.

    The two six point plans are very different. Very different. But you need to read it very carefully.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Freethinker is exactly right; the two six point plans are very different.

    The UN plan is nothing but a bunch of weasel words aimed at compromising Syria's sovereignty and ability to defend itself. The Syrian Govt would need to have rocks in their collective heads to agree to the UN plan. If I have time tonight I'll deconstruct it sentence by sentence.

    The news of NATO transiting toilet paper, drugs and god knows what else through Russia is very worrying too. Good catch Freethinker

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lizzie Phelan tells it like it is: Western Media are Manipulating the Syrian Crisis

    She also discusses the UN 6-point plan and points out how one-sided it is - no obligations on the 'rebels'.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey Freethinker

    Yes, she does I read the transcript.
    Her reportage on the "seige" of Homs
    was exactly what I had said. Homs had been under seige, by the rebels all along.
    Syrian troops effectively freed Homs.

    The media manipulation is clear and obvious but not really anything new.

    I see this morning the media is really pushing this "six point" plan is being presented as if it is a security council resolution vote.

    It isn't.

    Also this is not the first time we see this type of unanimous consent on a statement.
    This is the second time when all parties agreed to make a statement the first was on the IRC being allowed into the Homs area

    That all said, this is worrisome for Syria

    Why did we get a statement as opposed to a resolution?

    ReplyDelete
  12. James, yup your comment was in the spam
    It's out now
    annoying
    and there were two others!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Syria to cooperate with Annan, continue fighting ‘terrorists’

    Syria has vowed to cooperate with UN-Arab League peace envoy Kofi Annan, the Foreign Ministry said on Friday. But it added in a letter addressed to the United Nations that Damascus will continue fighting “terrorism.” The Syrian Government is “determined to protect its citizens by disarming the terrorists,” the ministry said. Annan was to give a videoconference briefing from Geneva to the UN Security Council on Friday on his recent talks with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    http://www.rt.com/news/line/2012-03-16/#id28079

    Can you tell I want to look at this from every angle?

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is very rough and ready, I'm afraid. I've just pulled out the more obvious points. Following is the 'six points' with my comments in teh text-

    To this aim, the Security Council fully supports the initial six-point proposal submitted to the Syrian authorities, as outlined by the Envoy to the Security Council on 16 March 2012, to:
    1)commit to work with the Envoy in an inclusive Syrian-led political process to address the legitimate aspirations and concerns of the Syrian people, and, to this end, commit to appoint an empowered interlocutor when invited to do so by the Envoy;


    “Syrian-led political process” Who is that? It's meaningless but it probably is read by the unwary as “Syrian govt led”. It could equally be the terrorists. “An empowered interlocutor” is actually an oxymoron. “Empowered” means someone in charge. SO this mean s the UN would place someone in charge and the Syrian govt would be subservient to him ie the UN

    2) commit to stop the fighting and achieve urgently an effective United Nations supervised cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties to protect civilians and stabilise the country.
    To this end, the Syrian government should immediately cease troop movements towards, and end the use of heavy weapons in, population centres, and begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centres.


    This means retreat for the Syrian armed forces leaving the battle field to the terrorists. It is obvious from this that the terrorists are getting the worst of the fighting. Otherwise there would be no need for NATO to be pushing this through the UN

    As these actions are being taken on the ground, the Syrian government should work with the Envoy to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism.

    “An effective United Nations supervision mechanism” could very well mean armed forces ie NATO forces under a UN flag”

    (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Similar commitments would be sought by the Envoy from the opposition and all relevant elements to stop the fighting and work with him to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism;

    Yeah, right. Just as soon as the Syrian army retreats. One sided as Freethinker has quoted Lizzie Phelan. Physical concessions on one side and promises by third parties on the other.

    3)ensure timely provision of humanitarian assistance to all areas affected by the fighting, and to this end, as immediate steps, to accept and implement a daily two hour humanitarian pause and to coordinate exact time and modalities of the daily pause through an efficient mechanism, including at local level.

    Humanitarian assistance by whom? And there's that “efficient mechanism” again! Plus two hours each day for the terrorists to restock and regroup. This temporary truce is a long time practice of the israelis when they are in trouble.

    4)intensify the pace and scale of release of arbitrarily detained persons, including especially vulnerable categories of persons, and persons involved in peaceful political activities, provide without delay through appropriate channels a list of all places in which such persons are being detained, immediately begin organising access to such locations and through appropriate channels respond promptly to all written requests for information, access or release regarding such persons;

    NATO want their stooges out of prison or at least to know where they are so they can spring them from prison.

    5)ensure freedom of movement throughout the country for journalists and a non-discriminatory visa policy for them;

    For 'journalists' read MI6/CIA agents

    6) respect freedom of association and the right to demonstrate peacefully as legally guaranteed.
    "The Security Council calls upon the Syrian government and opposition to work in good faith with the Envoy towards a peaceful settlement of the Syrian crisis and to implement fully and immediately his initial six-point proposal.


    Syria will inevitably be described as not working in good faith.

    "The Security Council requests the Envoy to update the Council regularly and in a timely manner on the progress of his mission. In the light of these reports, the Security Council will consider further steps as appropriate."

    Then the Security Council will be asked to increase intervention.

    The main thing though is to get Russia and China to agree to something, anything, so it can be presented to the public that they are in favour of anything that follows. It will then be confused with them agreeing to an armed invasion in the public's mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice analysis James.

      I get to read the statement and a line by line analysis as I do it.

      This is much better than one would see reading the mainstream press.

      Delete
  16. Hey James if your ok with that or if you would like to work on it a bit more, I would love to use that as a thoughtful analysis type thing...
    What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  17. cripes I got to remember to do the reply thing!

    ReplyDelete
  18. I forgot to add that of all the parties involved in this conflict, only the Syrian Govt is named. Everybody else are called "all parties" or "opposition". As they are not named, it applies to none of them. A mile or wriggle room there.

    Who would sign a contract where the other party is not even named or specifically identified? Only an idiot.

    Who would seriously present someone with a contract like that? Only shysters would

    ReplyDelete
  19. Go for it Pen. I was thinking of doing a post on it but I don't have the time at the moment. So use it however you like :)

    If you compare the points with the Chinese proposal you'll see they are very different. I would think the UN one using six points too was designed to create more confusion in the public's mind.

    My impression from all this is that the terrorists (and NATO) are in trouble. Syria should not negotiate with them at all.

    The only way to deal with psychopaths is not to deal with them.

    Both the US and the UK have centuries long history of NEVER keeping a treaty.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hey James

    'My impression from all this is that the terrorists (and NATO) are in trouble. Syria should not negotiate with them at all.'

    I agree and that will be the point of the post I am working on at this time

    If you would like more time to add to your thoughts, feel free, leave it here and I will put it in at then end of the new post.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have to admit that I do not really understand the politics of all of this but I go with my gut feelings and my personal convictions when it comes to 'what is right' so I believe that the war effort is still on, just taking a little longer than they hoped!

    Today I laughed again after seeing this news report. Its SO STUPID and frankly ridiculous because it's clearly a contradiction of reality (if that makes sense) - Have you seen it?

    The God is Great Brigade!

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_SYRIA_RISING_ISLAMISTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-03-21-18-03-33

    Marie
    aka Marty

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing demonstrates religious piety more than trying to kill people.

      I also saw a sniper unit formed the other day. Great.

      We are seeing a replay of previous invasions and I bet this stuff is geared more for Western audiences than it is meant to convince the Syrian people to revolt (it probably turns the Syrian people against the rebels). The perps want us to view Syria as an ancient land (hence articles on the archeological news) and a land filled with religious extremists and long running political instability. They want us to think it's like Iraq and Afghanistan, or something.

      Delete
  22. Just a couple of more thoughts Pen. NATO would like their "journalists" to be given freedon of travel throughout Syria to liaise with groups around the country in a bid to bring them into the 'opposition' and/or co-ordinate the actions of groups they have already bought.

    If the tide is turning for the NATO terrorists it will be increasingly hard to keep the local groups in the fold. So NATO needs people on the ground and 'in their face' to tell them whatever lies and threats that are needed to keep them onside.

    I would think that given teh Syrian armed forces are dealing effectively with NATO's terrorists, that there are Russian advisers in Syria helping them through their experience of dealing with these same groups in Chechnya and surrounds.

    But why did Russia sign this bullshit "Presidential Statement" given that they know that US and NATO are such liars and that the fall of Syria can only be bad for them?

    What promises or threats are the US making to Russia in exchange? Maybe the confusion is a result of all the factions at play within Russia including the ROC as Walter Mit Man points out and also the Jewish oligarchs who have considerable financial clout though less political clout now that Medvedev is out and Putin is back in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But why did Russia sign this bullshit "Presidential Statement" given that they know that US and NATO are such liars and that the fall of Syria can only be bad for them?
      Maybe this article might help

      PS
      Logging in with OpenID does not appear to work!

      Delete
    2. What Russian advisers are helping Syria deal with counter terrorism operations? I have heard there are advisers helping
      Syria with the anti-aircraft weapon system Russia sold them, or something dealing with a weapons training advisory role. I don't think Russian troops are anywhere near the fighting. That would really change my perspective if that's the case so I would be interested in seeing more reports on this.

      The previous story about Russian navy special forces being sent to Syria was obviously made up to exaggerate the Russian assistance. A Russian paper only published the report in Arabic and the claims were based on rebel claims and the claim of a U.S. 'open source' intelligence website. As the Russians later said, certain military ships will have marines on board, etc., so this would not be unusual if there were military ships in the area, which apparantly there aren't.

      Which is odd. If Russia was only half serious about defending Syria it would have more naval vessels at its base in Syria.

      My guess is the Russians already have a pledge from the Americans not to attack the base and to allow the Russians to continue its use once the terrorists take over control of the country.

      And look, I don't know why people aren't acknowledging the MOST RELEVANT FACT, referenced above by Anonymous, which is the statement by Russia that it WOULD NOT JEOPARDIZE ITS national security by militarily defending Syria. Game over. The U.S. and NATO now have can rest assured that an attack will not lead to WWIII (at least in the sense of bringing in Russia and probably China). Russia has also recently said it interprets its treaty with Syria so as not to require defense.

      Like anonymous I too noticed that this critical information was leaked out in a very minimalist manner. That says something. This was a diplomatic message to the Syrians to give up. Russia is abandoning her. Just like the personal message to Assad that he is a dead man and just like the people dissing Assad's wife. Game over.

      But Syria maybe has no option other than to pretend that China and Russia are sincere and to tread carefully.

      Delete
    3. Re Anonymous' link:

      I really did not intend to become the Russian skeptic here but I can't help myself because it seems to me everyone is misreading Russia.

      The article states that Russia is agreeing to put pressure on Assad to secretly help him? Bringing in the Trojan horse Annan will help Assad?

      C'mon. Really? In what world will this work? The entire west, NATO, and the GCC want Assad gone and are putting incredible pressure on him, yet if he agrees to let inspectors/negotiators/mediators in, he will look good and be able to turn the tables on his adversaries . . . . just like Saddam and Ghaddafi and . . . . I just don't see it.

      Assad already has the support of his people, it appears, yet it doesn't matter. The SC still questions his legitimacy and will never listen to the people.

      I seriously doubt the Russians are so deluded that they think they are HELPING Assad by bringing Annan in.

      No, since they already abandoned Syria militarily the only way they can help is diplomatically. Partial retreats diplomatically against a much stronger foe, like this SC statement represents, are doomed to fail.

      The only way Russia could successfully defend Syria diplomatically is if it totally defended them--rebutting all the charges of the West instead of agreeing to most of them. what lawyer, for instance, starts out defending his client by admitting that most of the charges against him are true, but he shouldn't be punished that harshly? Why not deny the allegations, especially since they appear to be false?

      If Russia were serious about defending Syria, it would veto ALL SC measures, especially one bringing Annan in.

      Delete
    4. If Russia were serious about defending Syria, it would veto ALL SC measures, especially one bringing Annan in.

      Absolutely, Walter. And I agree with all your other points. Russia has definitely sold out Syria by openly stating it is not bound to militarily defend their treaty with Syria. But on the surface it doesn't make sense to give NATO 'carte blanche' as Russia's interests are aligned with Syria's (and Iran's) in the long run.

      So either the same people who run israel, the UK and the US are also running Russia (which I think you are saying): or Russia has traded some future concessions from NATO for this withdrawal of support for Syria (unlikely given NATO's history of breaking agreements with Russia); or the usual suspects have Russia over a barrel somehow. Yet none of these scenarios are completely convincing to me.

      Delete
  23. Re this article (thanks anonymous). Lavrov's explanation of why they are backing the UN proposal of talks headed by Annan is a beguiling rationalistion. But it ignores the fact that it is not in Syria's interests to negotiate at all given that ALL parties concerned want to reduce Syria to rubble. Any concessions from Al Assad will weaken Syria's ability to defend itself and so be more surely inviting the wholesale invasion and destruction of Syria.

    I wouldn't trust Kofi Annan to wash my socks.

    ReplyDelete
  24. WWM wrote- "What Russian advisers are helping Syria deal with counter terrorism operations? I have heard there are advisers helping
    Syria with the anti-aircraft weapon system Russia sold them, or something dealing with a weapons training advisory role. I don't think Russian troops are anywhere near the fighting. That would really change my perspective if that's the case so I would be interested in seeing more reports on this."


    I meant 'advisers' as in people who give advice on tactics and strategies plus intelligence as in satellite surveillance etc. I did not mean 'advisers' as a pseudonym for special ops troops. This is a guess on my part based on the effectiveness of the Syrian armed forces without using their own air power or surveillance in the face of the terrorists with all the backing and intelligence they have from NATO.

    Russia has had anti-aircraft missile batteries in Syria for some years. They were manned by Russian personnel but I don't know what the situation is now.

    ReplyDelete
  25. FYI
    Mother Agnes Merriam al-Saleeb, head of the Catholic Media Center team which visited Syria and witnessed the reality of the situation on the ground, said on Friday that there’s an environment that is nurturing and is in charge of nameless gunmen possessing advanced firearms and ammo, instructing them to vandalize and terrorize citizens and security forces in Syria.
    In a press conference attended by Italian, Belgian, French, Spanish and US journalists who visited Syria, Mother Agnes pointed out that the Catholic Media Center was the first media delegation that visited openly the hotspots and hospitals and witnessed what was being inflicted upon the security forces and the army.
    She pointed out that the Center has a list of the names of the actual victims who were murdered, butchered and dismembered for no discernible reason, adding that the images of those victims were used later in media setup claiming that security forces killed them.
    Mother Agnes said that the Center has more than 800 names of murder victims, 372 of them murdered in October alone, all of them security forces, pointing out to the “prophetic” observatory called the Syrian Human Rights Observatory that posts daily numbers of deceased people without giving a single name, adding that the Center called the Observatory and requested the names of the deceased, which it failed to deliver to this moment.
    etc
    http://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/mother-agnes-merriam-al-saleeb-nameless-gunmen-possessing-advanced-firearms-terrorize-citizens-and-security-in-syria/

    heres the video;
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysKtld_VGbk

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS & SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS