Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Syria- Assad's election win/Obama sudden change of 'mind'

Syria’s election is taking place today. Assad will, of course,win. Not because the election is rigged. Nope. He will win because the Syrians will elect him of their own free will.

Since all NATO media is spinning against the Syrian nation and it's people I will link to an RT article
‘Syrian elections show real Western contempt to democracy’

"It really shows the contempt that the Western countries have for democracy. They have been calling for democracy in Syria for years, and when the elections take place they not only denounced them but actually banned Syrians from taking part in them. We can contrast turnout in places like Lebanon, and the enthusiasm and passion with which people are turning up to voting with lackluster support and low turnout in European elections all across Europe last week. For the West, democracy is not so much a principle - as a stick to beat third-world countries. And when actually democracy asserts itself and reveals itself as it is happening at the Syrian elections at the moment, the West is not interested - it tries to sabotage it. A lot has been revealed actually about the West’s attitude to what is taking place now in Syria"

And this snippet of the last paragraph is being included, though I was trying for brevity, it fits!

Don’t forget, Israeli forces are already involved in the Syrian war - they have been bombing Syria. (and more) And Syria is the main backer and the main conduit for the Iranian arms to Hezbollah, which is the main anti-Israeli hegemonic group force in the region. So why does not the opposition want to get involved? They should stand on elections, but the truth is that they will not get anywhere. They are still hoping and praying that the West will bomb them into power as happened to Libya. It is a fantasy because I do not think the West have a stomach for doing that in the face of such opposition from Russia and Iran.

While the Syrians make their choice, democratically, at the ballot box the global fascist dictator, Obama, plots against the tiny sovereign, daring to be independent, nation. 
 Gulf News-Obama’s sudden change of mind on Syria

President Barack Obama’s foreign policy speech at West Point last week was in large part a list of all the things he doesn’t want to do. He doesn’t want to withdraw from the world. At the same time, he doesn’t want to use military force to solve every problem. Above all, he doesn’t want to get stuck in another war in the Middle East, or anywhere else, for that matter.
But there’s an exception to the Obama Doctrine of restraint: terrorism. Obama is ready and willing to use US military power — indirectly if possible, directly if needed — against terrorists who pose a threat to the US.
That’s why, even as he has withdrawn troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, the president has sent military advisors to Africa. And that’s why, almost unnoticed, he has approved a gradual but significant escalation of US action on the most complicated and dangerous battlefield of all: Syria.
Why escalate? The threat of terrorism, of course. A means of presentation that has been discussed on this blog previously

 Obama has taken the steps he once refused. Aides say the president has agreed to “ramp up” the modest weapons supplies the US began last year. Perhaps more important, he wants to send US troops to Jordan or other countries near Syria to train rebel units, assuming Congress and the other countries agree.

What’s changed? Not the moderate rebels’ chances of victory in their fight against both Al Assad and Al Qaida. After a series of military setbacks, those rebels are in worse shape on the ground than they were two years ago. Instead, it’s the alarming growth and reach of extremist Islamist groups in Syria — some allied with Al Qaida — that is driving Obama’s decisions.
Last week, a man from Florida became the first US citizen to die as a suicide bomber in the Syrian war. His death served as confirmation of the trend; as many as 70 Americans, a roughly equal number of Canadians and hundreds of Europeans may have joined jihadist groups in Syria, and, once trained and tested, some might return to attempt terrorism at home.

Tipping the balance
“What has concentrated our minds is the threat from foreign fighters,” a senior US official told me. “That drives home that we’re talking about real national security interests now.”
And it lands Syria — formerly a humanitarian tragedy and a refugee crisis but not a direct US threat — on Obama’s short list of “core interests” that justify the use of military force.
Have you noticed all the reports of foreign fighters from every nation 'finding' there way into Syria? No mention of how it is they would have got their? And just who armed and trained them? Nope, that's not mentioned. What is mentioned is how violent they are. All those other questions are unanswered. Completely avoided.
 For the time being, the US focus is on tipping the balance, if possible, in the civil war; providing an alternative to Al Qaida for young Syrians who want to fight; and, importantly, providing helpers on the ground for US intelligence agencies as they hunt for potential terrorists. Not on the list of goals: a rebel military victory. That’s way out of reach, officials say.
What Obama is doing, of course, is trying to stay clear of the dreaded slippery slope toward full military intervention on the rebels’ behalf. Promise too much, officials fear, and sooner or later someone will ask the US to deliver.
The kind of limited commitment Obama is offering Syria’s moderates takes the US onto swampy moral ground. Once we train and arm “our” rebels, do we have an obligation to defend them against slaughter if they lose?
Will the West bomb their rebels into power? (RT oped)
 Haven't they already been trying?
Will they go full scale like Libya? Or Yugoslavia? Time will tell.
And finally from Gulf News-
 It’s just possible, incongruous though it sounds, that Al Qaida — by drawing the US into the fight — might yet save Syria’s democratic opposition from utter defeat.

Al Qaida-  might yet save Syria's "democratic opposition"?
What contorted version of reality is this? There is an election going on. A democratic election.
Who is the democratic opposition being referred to here? Notice that Al Qaida is always there when NATO/US/Israel needs them- What a curious coincidence?
But then... I am not a coincidence theorist

Please check out-  Lessons and Consequences of World War I: Back to the Future?


  1. @Notice that Al Qaida is always there when NATO/US/Israel needs them- What a curious coincidence? But then... I am not a coincidence theorist


    No, there are no coincidences. This shows that Israel did not renounce to the Oded Yinon plan. It certainly was modified in details, updated, upgrade, you name it, but the final objectives remain the same.

    "Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon".
    "The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today

    "(Regaining) the Sinai peninsula with its present and potential resources is therefore a political priority which is obstructed by the Camp David and the peace agreements....
    Israel will not unilaterally break the treaty, neither today, nor in 1982, unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically and Egypt provides Israel with the excuse to take the Sinai back into our hands for the fourth time in our short history. What is left therefore, is the indirect option. The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-

    Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai as a strategic, economic and energy reserve for the long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day".

    What you see is a new "Redirection" (see the 2007 New Yorker article titled, “The Redirection” by Seymour Hersh - which unveiled the plot to use the Muslim Brotherhood). You may see now a resumption of "tehrorh" rocoket attacks against the children of Israel. That would be a justification of a counteroffensive in Sinai. For this Egypt must be weakened further. Ther is another thing, expressed by a member of the opposition who said that al Sisi must find an accomodation with America, because "what else would we be left with, an alliance with Russia and China?"

    1. Hi wizoz

      and so it goes.... It's quite clear that coincidence in the matter we are talkin' is planning.
      AQ is always on the NATO side, hence the US/Israeli side. What drives me bonkers is that it is so obviously in your face and the masses don't see it
      How can this be?

      RE: Egypt and it's divisions
      And the MB- I am familiar with the historical use of MB by western intelligence agencies
      The coup of Morsi was divisive for Egypt. This coronation of al sisi will drive the divide further...Think I said that the other day? Israel is waiting.
      The more blows to Egypt, the more division, the more Israel rubs it's greedy hands together

  2. When Al CIADA the acronym stands for All CIA Denominated Allies there is never any question about when and where to use the name to justify any tension/trouble/killing/bombing/scapegoat whatsoever.
    I rest My Case