Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Syria- EU recognition, FSA participants, landmines and Turkey's role

I finished up my post on Friday suggesting that there would be an attack on Syria.
So we shall pick up with that thought in mind-

Of course, it is rather obvious that Syria has long been under attack by the West in a covert rather then overt manner. Covert to those who don’t pay attention.
Obvious to those that do.
I think the tactics may be about to change.
Will it be on the ground? Or airstrikes? How will it be promoted?

First there is of course the “humanitarian” ruse with UN approval
You knowing bombing, killing, maiming and destroying to “save” people.
And seriously, how screwed up is your thinking to buy into that concept at all?!
Without UN “approval” to dress up the slaughter of Syrians, this angle might not play out well to the supporters of humanitarian "intervention". This bunch needs approval for their killing agenda.
Option #2: Perhaps the “war on terror” angle can be played out?
Turkey will need to defend itself from Kurdish attacks of “terror”
Option # 3: Maybe there will be a coalition of the willing? More truthfully, a coalition of killers killing.

The NATO/Israeli expansionist imperial agenda is not without options, should the phoney legitimisation of the UN fail.

As always, for reasons of perspective and context we have to step back to move forward-

From March 5/2012, the nearing of the one year anniversary of the destabilization beginnings is at hand.
In that post there was a brief mention that the EU had recognized the Syrian National Council in Turkey.
That surely was one of the most under reported news story in this whole Syrian saga.
The EU recognition move took place on Friday March 02/12.
What the media was focusing on at that time was the “tactical withdrawal” of the fighters from Homs. Which took place March 01/2012
Was the fighters tactical withdrawal done in advance of the next step in the NATO destruction of Syria?
The media coverage of the EU recognition was virtually non-existent.
Still to this date (March 12/12) there is only a handful of stories.

Quoting from this story

The European Union recognized the Syrian National Council as a “legitimate representative of Syrians,” the 27-nation bloc said in draft conclusions from a summit in Brussels today.

“The European Union supports the Syrian opposition in its struggle for freedom, dignity and democracy, recognizes the Syrian National Council as a legitimate representative of Syrians and calls upon all members of the Syrian opposition to unite in its peaceful struggle,” a sentence added to the draft conclusions overnight said.

Individual members of the EU, including the U.K., have already recognized the SNC."

The UK beat the EU to the punch! Is it a pretty safe bet that France did also?
Given they have been knee deep in the destabilization with their best “philosopher” Bernard Henri Levy preaching attacks on Syria.? With the special ops soldiers being arrested in Syria?
It just makes sense that France had already jumped the gun and recognized the SNC.

- March 10 we see Qatar calling on Arab and “western” states to recognize the SNC.

Surely Qatar is aware that the EU has already done the deed?!

Is this really a call for the Arab nations that were not on board with yet another overthrow?
Or a call to the US? Or a ruse to create a coalition of the willing?

March 10 also has the main stream media reporting a "fresh assault" on towns in Idlib province.
This isn't "fresh". It seems that this is a continuation of a strategy by the Syrians to get the Turkish backed rebels back into Turkey.
To prevent, as I have mentioned repeatedly, the carving out of a NATO no fly zone.

"Reports of this latest military operation raised fears that Assad's regime was planning a new all-out offensive in Idlib.

Military reinforcements poured into Idlib this week, including dozens of tanks and armoured personnel carriers"

Today the msm is carrying more stories on the tactical clean up of foreign rebel fighters in Syria.
With reports from “activists” which of course are rife with the tales of so called innocent protestors/civilians being harmed.

Of course the media never asks why the FSA backed by NATO and Turkey is putting their rebels in the cities and towns of Syria?
Putting Syrian civilians in harms way? Compliant media.

The FSA is reporting their killing of Syrian soldiers. Ten of them ambushed at a checkpoint.

This is likely true, the NATO backed fighters have always been quite proud of their deadly accomplishments.

"Syrian army defectors killed at least 10 soldiers in an ambush in the northern town of Idlib on Tuesday, a rights activist said.

“At least 10 Syrian soldiers have been killed by army defectors in the northern town of Idlib,”
“They were killed during an early morning ambush on a government checkpoint,”

Idlib province backs onto Turkey and has been a focal point of clashes between government forces and the “lightly armed” (bullshit) Syrian Free Army (SFA), which has vowed to topple Assad.

Sounds about right. The Syrian government would have had the military set up checkpoints to keep foreign invaders out. They were ambushed and quite likely foreign fighters poured in through the unmanned checkpoint afterwards.

Despite the mind control spin of the western msm it is clear Syria is under attack.
One can get that knowledge without going to Syrian media. It is in the details, the information no one pays attention to once they have glanced at headlines or got their talking points from the talking heads on the idiot box.

Let’s take a peek at these foreign fighters? Who have apparently come from all over including Pakistan. Yes, Pakistan!

Sunni fighters- usually associated with terror in Pakistan have appeared in Syria.- Though not named , lets speculate that they are TTP or Tehrik e Taliban of Pakistan.
A Sunni group that usually targets the Shi’ite population in Pakistan or Afghanistan to foment sectarian violence. Divide to conquer. As needed, one could say.

Sunni jihadists from Pak fighting in Syria battlefields
“Foreign Sunni jihadists, including a few from Pakistan, are fighting alongside Syrian rebels who have taken on President Bashar al-Assad,”

Definitely not Syrians!

While denying that there are many foreigners battling Syrian forces, he said “there are a few, of different nationalities. But we are mostly Syrians.” (Not)

While the numbers are difficult to pin down, one international expert said that, in a violence-wracked country, the possibility of foreign fighters participating in a rebellion always exist.

That international ‘expert’ mouthpiece is Peter Harling from the International Crisis Group- another NGO that has that NATO stink to it.

In mid-February, an observer with the Arab League in Homs told AFP that "many foreign fighters," including Pakistanis, Afghans, Lebanese, Iraqis, Sudanese, Libyans and Yemenis led most of the fighting and "dominated everybody."

Based on my own reading, the report of the Arab League Observer in Homs-" Many foreign fighters" is most accurate!
No doubt all of them western backed assets. Al Quaeda, Libyan Fighters, Turks, TTP, mercenaries and special ops. And of course, not to be forgotten, Mossad

One of the above linked article mentions landmines being laid by Syrian troops-
War is dirty isn’t it? Personally, I hate land mines.
However, since Turkey has insisted on sending all sorts of fighters across the border and giving them cover in the “refugee camps” what can be expected?
Don't take this as an endorsement of sorts. It isn't
Here's more on that topic

The Syrian military in the past month planted a band of anti-personnel mines along stretches of the border with Turkey.

The Syrian military had planted the mines in early to mid-February for more than a mile along the border near Jisr al Shughur.

Mines were also planted about 12 miles to the north, in Guvecci.

If you had fighters pouring over the border and causing mayhem in your country, what course of action would be undertaken by the government and the military?

According to this report, were supposed to believe this was done to "target fleeing civilians"
'the military informed those residents of Jisr that if they needed to go to the border area to tend their fields, they should approach the military first"
Does that sound like the targeting of civilians?

Some of you may recall Jisr Al Shugur from news around June 2011?

When fighters came into Syria via Turkey and slaughtered many Syrian soldiers then fled back into Turkey right across the border and into those infamous "refugee camps" that Death Angel(ina) visited for her UN psy-operation.

If NATO can’t get their no fly zone using the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafist, Alquaeda and all other manner of foreign fighters/rebels to accomplish this goal, is Turkeywilling to change tactics?
Playing a different angle as cover for the real agenda at hand?

Heads Up for Part II


  1. They are doubling down on Option One, Operation Crocodile Tears. It's all about the Syrian children these child murderers would have us believe.

    As you note, the war is already in motion, and indeed the pace seems to be even quicker than what we saw in Libya. The diplomatic recognition shows that and good job showing how these dates are related and carefully chosen.

    Even though the West got caught lying and committing blatant war propaganda, as this blog has revealed, it only caused a slight hesitation in their plans. They had to do a bit of damage control but the perps got all their accomplices back on board. They are probably emboldened.

    They West realizes it can still get away with murder even if a few people catch them with bloody hands. Most people have been tricked to look away from the perps' bloody hands.

    But these are not creative perps. They are sticking to the same lame plan. They are painting Assad as a monster and blaming the Syrian forces for the West's own acts of terrorism.

    For me the tell that they are going full steam ahead with option one is Russia. Russia is like the Democrats in America--it is playing a role of fake opposition. It will not defend Assad and Syria. Putin already said Assad is a dead man. Russia already said it doesn't interpret its treaty with Syria as requiring military defense. Russia said today that Syria is equally at fault, under the guise of helping Syria by saying 'both sides do it.' Russia is throwing Syria under the bus and this was apparent some time ago.

    Then we have the other captured leftists, like Juan Cole and Angry Arab, performing a similar function--under the guise of opposing an attack on Syria they actually provide support for said attack and justifying the underlying premise--that Assad is responsible for human rights abuses. There is actually more proof that the U.S. is a human rights abuser than there is proof that Assad or Gaddafi are/were.

    No. They are sticking with Option 1 and they will get away with it. For the most part.

    More and more of us are recognizing the story peddled by the West, the media, and even the left-wing gatekeepers and Russia, is probably false. These are actually Western war crimes being blamed on Assad.

    I cannot get over the enormity of the scam these perps are pulling. Blatant lies and war propaganda. These murderous thugs are gong to kill thousands, and maybe tens of thousands more. They are bloodthirsty and mad with power. They project when they blame their victims as being mad with power. Obama and Sarkozy and Cameron are the real power mad monsters. War criminals, actually. And most of the media organizations appear to be criminally complicit

    1. the crux of the matter is that the scheme benfits ISRAEL. Israel controls US think tanks, govt, finance, COngress and MEDIA and western heads of state/govts aslo, so they can do what they want- because- surprise the NGOs and peace movement are controlled by their dual nation agents as well.

      we are moving into world government dictatorship by the zionists enabled by the masses' inaction. too bad about russia (another one owned by the russian jewish oligarchs) and china (who they'll finish off with a bio weapon). once syria falls, its over for all of us... then its onto Iran of course. but the real mission is after that: neocons take russia and finish off the little that wasnt killed off under the jewish bolsheviks.

    2. Kiyul Chung, writing June 2011 hits the nail on the head...
      Libya as a new litmus test if the “21st Century Law of the Jungle“ will prevail. We're now at stage II.

    3. WWM;
      I haven't seen Russia throw Assad under the bus, yet.
      But, I'm watching!

    4. anonymous 5:40 am

      "the crux of the matter is that the scheme benfits ISRAEL."

      Yes, it does. Do you notice how that angle-
      benefits Israel, gets such short shrift.
      And if someone mentions it- It is "anti-semetic"

    5. Felix and by "now at stage 2", do you mean Syria?
      As in Libya,Syria, Iran?

    6. Penny. I actually got that information from your blog. In the same link where I shared my conspiracy theory about Putin and the leaders of Russia (involving Project Hammer).

      The linked article pointed out that Putin said Assad was a "dead man." It sounds like this is a Russian saying, something about the condemned man dancing around with his own casket. Of course he says Assad is dead unless he gives up power, but basically that's saying he's a dead man because Syria is not going to simply roll over and let the West conquer it.

      Here's the link from Blammo on March 3: http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2012/03/war-on-russia-green-lights-invasion.html

      Plus, for the other reasons I mention above the writing is on the wall and it's clear Russia will do nothing.

      As a side note I found the treatment I received at MofA for airing these theories to be interesting. Some people evidently have a big stake in Russia generally, and Putin specifically, being the real deal.

      I wish Russia and Putin were the real deal and sincerely wish to counteract Western aggression . . . . but wishes do not make reality.

    7. Here's the original source, the Daily Star in Lebanon: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1139775--russia-s-putin-backs-away-from-syria-s-assad

      One does not joke around about the assassination of a leader lightly. Especially after Ghaddafi was summarily executed by anal rape.

      Also notice the bit about Libya, and how Putin called Ghaddafi "crazy".

      This sounds more like the defense one sees from Democrats and the captured opposition, like Juan Cole, Angry Arab, the Democrats, Chris Hedges, etc. They pretend to oppose the military assault but end up justifying all the incorrect assumptions.

      Ghaddafi is "crazy" and a tyrant. Just like Assad is a tyrant and "both sides" bear responsibility.

      This is not a defense of Syria . . . . it's a green light to attack under the guise of objecting to the military assault.

    8. Penny. yes, stage III Iran I guess.

    9. WWM- I recall the comment from Blammo
      If you check back I left a response to Blammo about that assertion.

      Do you notice how disjointed that article is?
      It has Putin accusing the west
      but then his "foreign ministry" not Putin claiming no help for Syria

      "Putin on Friday accused the West of fueling the Syrian conflict by backing government opposition, but his foreign ministry said it will not protect Syria from military intervention."

      Sets up the premise then disjointed statements to create the perception.

      And sentences like this are pure absurdity

      'Russia has made it clear that it will not be able to stop other countries from launching a military intervention if they try to do it without UN approval.'

      That is a given, how would Russia prevent any nation from moving on Syria? It would be like me, preventing you from doing something, how is that possible?
      Those decisions and actions are undertaken in other nations.

      These types of sentence are used to create a specific perception in the readers mind.

      WWM- "Ghaddafi is "crazy" and a tyrant"
      But, that is not what is said.
      Quoting from TS article
      "Putin said that while Gadhafi’s regime was “crazy,” its ouster led to the massive killings of civilians.

      Note only one quoted word is used in the sentence indicating that word was used by Putin but everything else is paraphrased.
      Paraphrased from what?

      As of now, I have not seen an indication that Russia is
      turning on Syria,As of now. Two vetoes at the Security Council, the continuation of arm sales.

      I can't prove this of course, but, I think there is also military support. Be it informational? Via Satellite?
      Keep in mind that at any given time, because of the Tartus port there are Russians- military and otherwise on the ground in Syria.


      A senior Russian government official says Moscow sees no reason for curtailing its military cooperation with Damascus despite calls from the West to stop arming Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime.

      Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said Tuesday that Russia will abide by existing contracts to deliver weapons to Syria.

      He told reporters that Russia enjoys "good, strong military technical cooperation with Syria, and we see no reason to reconsider it."

      will that change? Who knows?
      But right now, Russia and China haven't backed away from Syria

    10. I repsectfully disagree. Strongly.

      I suspect this is a trick to string people like you and me along, so that we think someone is doing something to prevent an atrocity, while they really have no such intention. The Russians appear to be the controlled opposition.

      You have to read between the lines and look at Russia's actions and not just the rhetoric. That's what we do with the West and their media and it makes sense to bring the same skepticism to Russian claims. Of course Russia is not going to come right out and say explicitly that they are abandoning Syria. Which is why Putin used a parable, or a cute saying, to condemn Assad--the whole Assad holding a coffin saying. He also compared Assad to the Titanic.

      What do you make of Putin's rhetoric? Is he just joking? Why would he use such strong analogies? Assad is compared to a sinking ship and Putin jokes about his death? This can't be an accident. No way. Putin, as a fomer spook, would not talk lightly in this way. They are sending Assad a message. Just as the knife rape of Ghaddafi was a message to leaders like Assad. Surely you can't just dismiss this language as coincidental or joking?

      Also, what does it mattter if a minister said they wouldn't defend Syria instead of Putin? It's still the official government response and it was not corrected as it would have been if erroneos. I fact, this is the preferred way to release uncomfortable information--they are going to dribble out the truth in a way that does not draw attention.

      Russia will bark in public and pretend to offer Syria and Assad rhetorical support but they quietly let slip what their true actions will be--nothing.

      Why say this publicly? If the Russians truly wanted to help the Syrians wouldn't they at least refuse to answer the questions and say they MAY help militarily? There is after all an ambiguous treaty that provides for military assistance. Why would they say before hand they interpret the treaty to not require military support? Clearly Russia would have at least pretended it would support Syria, or at least maintain the right to do so, if they were sincere. Instead they are giving the West a green light (no broader war with Russia).

      Don't you see the significance of this statement?

      Also, did you see Russia is freezing Iranian bank accounts? How does this mesh with the theory the Russians want to protect Syria and Iran from the West? Seems like they are enabling the attack while pretending to oppose it.

      So I don't think it's accurate to say Russia hasn't backed away from Syria. They have backed away--at least a little bit. I don't see how one can completely dismiss the reports. If one wants to take the position that Russia sincerely supports Syria then one could point to what you do at the end of your last comment, that they claim to be following through on existing military contracts and they see no reason for curtailing military cooperation and that they have vetoed measures at the UN. . . but in many other regards the support has been withdrawn.

      It is very clear to me the attack will come and Russia is not doing everything it can to attack. If Russia were sincere it would want to stop this precedent of the West attacking sovereign countries right now. They would nip it in the bud and send troops to Syria and not tell the West they will do nothing . . . they would at least act like they may defend Syria and treat this attack on Syria with the importannce it deserves. For instance, it should be correcting the false news from the West but instead it is justifying the false Western narrative by claiming both sides are committing atrocities.

    11. Also, I don't know if the word "crazy" was invented by the author of the article. Sure, you're right that the original Russian speech should be analyzed and the rhetoric used there should be considered as the first source. I welcome any clarciations about Putin's speech.

      But it does appear Putin called the Ghaddafi regime "crazy." I used the word tyrinical because that's the way I interpreted the usage of "crazy" in that context. So that's my paraphrase.

      But it does seem that the Russian leaders treated Ghaddafi as jointly to blame along with the rebels, just as they are doing with Assad. Sure, you're right that the original Russian speech should be analyzed and the rhetoric used there should be considered as the first source. But it does appear he called the Ghaddafi regime "crazy." I used the word tyrinical because that's the way I interpreted the usage of "crazy" in that context. But it does seem that the Russian leaders treated Ghaddafi as jointly to blame, just as they are treating Assad. They use language like "crazy" and describe the regimes of Syria and Libya as being jointly responsible and refuse to take all steps to defend these regimes.

      Do you really believe these issues were created by the reporter in the Daily Star to unfairly impugn the motives to Putin and the Russians? Doesn't make sense to me. Don't see it and the Russians' actions are severely suspicious. What's the motivation? Is the Daily Star anti-Russian?

      A year ago I would have thought the same thing you argue . . . that of course the Russians are sincere and oppose the West. Now I've seen this drama play out so many times that I'm starting to question all the basic assumptions. Lots of people playing games.

      Do you really believe these issues were created by the reporter in the Daily Star to unfairly impugn the motives to Putin and the Russians? Doesn't make sense to me. Don't see it and the Russians' actions are severely suspicious.

      A year ago I would have thought the same thing you are . . . that of course the Russians are sincere and oppose the West. Now I've seen this drama play out so many times that I'm starting to question all the basic assumptions. Lots of people playing games.

    12. Jeez. My original comment disappeared . . . . where I responded to your issues in detail . . . . and this second comment is all garbled and not the way it was when I hit enter.

      What is going on?

    13. I will try to recreate my rebuttal to your arguments about Russia above because I think the subject is of the utmost importance and I don't see many other people discussing these issues.

      I'm trying not to be too paranoid but it really is amazing to me how frustrating it is to share these two new areas of research I think are of monumental importance:

      1. Media fakery
      2. Complicity of the "opposition", whether it be Democrats, Russians, Wikileaks, Anonymous, or even seemingly critical blogs.

      I do believe there is now evidence of a broader conspiracy and I don't think the trouble I am having discussing these issues is no coincidence. There is a reason very few blogs (like this one) discusses media fakery for instance.


      The Russian government said it would not protect Syria militarily. The gov. official was not fired and the information was not corrected--so we should take it as the official Russian response.

      This is suspicious. If they really wanted to protect Syria they would have kept options open or even bluffed to the West they would defend Syria. That is the only way Russia can prevent it. By saying explicitly the won't defend the West knows they have a green light. Normally an ally does not engage in this behavior and will say it's considering all options.

      Also, Putin would not joke about Assad being in a coffin. It's a threat. Just like the knife rape murder of Ghaddafi was a threat to leaders like Assad. Same thing when he said Assad was the Titanic. Why joke like this? These are strong analogies to use and suspicious for a supposed ally.

      Also, Russia has said in the last few days both sides are to blame. So it is backing up the basic assumptions of the West--that Assad is committing some crimes, it is just taking issues with the extent and what to do about it.

    14. Hi WWM, Blogger eats comments on a random basis and I can't explain why? I find it frustrating, very.

      I am totally ok with you disagreeing with me.

      I am looking at Russia's actions and purposely avoiding rhetoric and diplospeak
      I do the same with what comes out of the mouths of all other political leaders.

      wwm 'A year ago I would have thought the same thing you argue . . . that of course the Russians are sincere and oppose the West. "

      I am not arguing or assuming the Russians are sincere.
      Sincerity appears to have no place in politics. It should, but, it doesn't. I only reference interests
      political, strategic, geographic..

    15. Thanks Penny.

      Don't mean to put words in your mouth.

      I guess in my mind the question is about Russian sincerity. And while I agree that diplospeak should not be taken on face value, the diplomatic posture of a government can be significant. Other times we should ignore it but in this case it's important.

      Here we have what appears to be the official Russian response to the Western attack on Syria--Russia won't intervene militarily to help. That is a very important diplomatic message that is being hidden from the public (while the opposite message is being promoted--that Russia is threatening to intervene).

      This tells us what the end game in Syria will be. Putin even tells us what the end game will be when he talks about the Titanic and coffins. Of course they keep up the pretense that things can be resolved diplomatically, if Assad steps down, but we know enough to know that bit of diplospeak is a lie (like when Obama says he hopes to resolve the dispute peacefully--we can't believe this--war has probably already been decided).

  2. The wiki page references a much earlier tacit recognition of the SNC by France. See also Rifaat al-Assad and Burhan Ghalioun for the French Connection,(as would be expected), the equivalent of the UK leading role in the Libyan adventure.

    1. Though France wasn't specifically mentioned in that article..
      It just knew they had already recognized that illegitimate NATO creation in Turkey

  3. After the latest news I get the feeling that trouble in Afghanistan is only serving to ratchet-up the quicker withdraw from the country in readiness for the coming new assault through Syria and Iran... I haven't looked for it but apparently they have released a new video on Youtube purportedly showing another massacre of innocents in Syria...lots of children..of course! (I haven't seen it but it was reported on the British Forces radio network which targets the military and their families)

    aka Marty

    1. Hey Mar/Mar :)

      Marie and Marty together

      I am of the opinion the withdrawal in Iraq served the same purpose- sure there are troops still in afghanistan & iraq
      but- levels have been lowered to prepare for Syria and Afghanistan

      Though not a betting person, I am would put money on a bet that would see me winning. US troops are already/have been for a while in Syria

  4. 'The European Union recognized the Syrian National Council as a “legitimate representative of Syrians'

    no need to ask the syrians...isnt this sort of behaviour typical of...dictators? so why have none of the usualwatchdogs spoke out?

    If it is that easy , then i recogonise the Beton national council as ruler of france, the Basque National Front as ruler of spain....etc

    1. My hubby wants to be recognized as the new leader of Canada!
      He said so last week and I am about to recognize him and together we will make it so ;)

      Just like how the leaders of the free and democratic nations do!

  5. @Walter Wit ManMar 13, 2012 10:11 AM

    "Russia is like the Democrats in America--it is playing a role of fake opposition. It will not defend Assad and Syria."

    The only reason why Russia is still supporting Syria has nothing to do with the weasel Mededev or Putin, rather Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim of Antioch who
    have come out very strongly in their support of Syria. Putin has no choice now.

    1. I agree that the leaders of Russia have to put on appearances for the people. I'm sure the religious connection is a big angle for the people--something that Americans, for instance, are not aware of.

      Plus, as Penny mentions below, there are strong economic and military ties. And historical ties as well. I bet everyday Russians view Syria as an ally from the Cold War and would not enjoy seeing Russia cut Syria loose to be fed to the Western wolves.

      But my view is that Russia will simply pretend it's doing everything it can to stop an attack but will come up a biiiiiit short (just like the Democrats). Putin and Medvedev have no choice now but to PRETEND like they are protecting Syria. That's their cover.

      But they are already letting the people know what they will do in fact (nothing--they even said the treaty does not obligate them to defend). They even said Assad is a dead man. They are getting the Russian people ready for the inevitable.

  6. Anonymous 2;32 am

    Do you think that is the reason for Russia's support?

    I don't know? Myself, I don't see that being a factor.

    IMO it has always been about the billions poured into the Port in Tartus/Tartous and access to the Mediterranean......

    Even the arms sales don't rank.
    There is always someone who will buy arms
    Another group, another nation
    But the Port is prime