Monday, December 24, 2012

NATO: Killing Christians. Russia's Syrian presence "problematic" ?


And much more. Sadly. First a bit of a rant.
It’s Christmas time.
Peace on Earth and Good will towards all of mankind
If only. If only. If only.
Sigh... I’ll come back to that
First. Syria. The birth of Christ. The plight of the Christians in Syria. They are threatened. Most definitely!
But, not by their government. Not by their leader
Instead the Christians of Syria are threatened by the NATO/Israeli backed mercs
Let us all read together. At this time of love for our fellow man......?
Whilst the Christians of the West sit silent as their brethren are being slaughtered for the political agenda of imperialism for NATO and expansionism for Israel
May your God forgive your apathy. May your God forgive your laziness. Your insolence. Your inhumanity. Your willingness to follow false gods. Your general inhumanity. Your failure to use the brains that you have been given. The very brains that separate you from other creatures of this planet.

A Christmas Nightmare for Syria’s Christians
Syria's 1.8 million Christians make up some five percent of the population.

Many have tried to remain neutral in the country's spiraling conflict. Others have taken President Bashar al-Assad's side, for fear of the Islamists in rebel ranks.

"Foreign fighters are coming to Syria to impose their religious and political views in our country," said Maryam, who lives in central Damascus.

"These armed terrorists might force me to wear the veil, stop working and stay home," she said.

Yes, Maryam.  Foreign fighters backed and supported by the alleged Christian nations of the West.
Paid for with tax dollars and debt servitude that is and will be extracted on the backs of weary people being turned to serfs in supposed first world Christian nations.
NATO’s mercs threaten Christian towns in Syria
Islamist foreign fighters threaten to attack two towns, both Christian.
Towns that have been kept safe by Syrian troops and the Syrian people

 Islamist rebels warned two Christian towns on Saturday they will be attacked if they do not evict regime forces, as the new Greek Orthodox patriarch said Syria's often-fearful Christians will stay put and urged a peaceful end to the conflict.

In a video message to the Hama provincial towns of Mharda and Sqilbiya, one of seven men armed with Kalashnikovs warned residents to expel gangs of (President Bashar al-) "Assad and shabiha (pro-regime militia) from your towns and convince them not to bomb our villages and families."

"If not, we will immediately attack the hideouts of Assad's gangs and shabiha," added the man, who identified himself as Rashid Abul Fida, head of the Al-Ansar Brigade in Hama.

In other words lay yourselves bare for us to attack you, terrorize, rape &  pillage:both you and all your loved ones.In the name of NATO and Israel. Let us destroy your homes and kill your family as we have done in the villages we have previously laid siege to. The villages we are operating presently from, the villages we are using as a base for our NATO backed terrorism.

"What is happening to us is happening to others too. We are in the same situation as everyone else, Muslims and Christians, shoulder to shoulder, facing the difficulties," he said.

This admission in the Western media is interesting.... 

Russian presence in Syriaproblematic” for a US led intervention. Does this have something to do with the reported movement of Iskander missiles into Syria?? Covered previously here at the blog... somewhere here...  I will relink later

You can read about the Iskander deployment here:  Russia NATO standoff looms, then continue on to read about the problems the Russian presence in Syria creates.

The hostility shown to Russia inside Syria by the opposition appears only one part of a bigger story, which has a larger international dimension. NATO forces at Ankara’s request are deploying Patriot missiles in Turkey, apparently, not far from the Syrian border. The Russians have slammed this move, and reinforced their opposition with the deployment in Syria of the state-of-the art Iskander missiles, which, apparently cannot be downed by any known anti-missile system.

The Russian move mirrors the beginning of a standoff between Washington and Moscow -- faintly echoing an era when rival missile deployments symbolised the Cold War chill between the two. Iran has also reacted furiously at the deployment of Patriot missiles, and the impending presence of these weapons seems to have reinforced an already existing dynamic of bringing Moscow and Tehran closer.
Quoting from the Guardian and Telegraph:

Russian military advisers are manning some of Syria's more sophisticated air defences something that would complicate any future US-led intervention, the Guardian has learned.

The advisers have been deployed with new surface-to-air systems and upgrades of old systems, which Moscow has supplied to the Assad regime since the Syrian revolution broke out 21 months ago.

The depth and complexity of Syria's anti-aircraft defences mean that any direct western campaign, in support of a no-fly zone or in the form of punitive air strikes against the leadership, would be costly, protracted and risky. The possibility of Russian military casualties in such a campaign could have unpredictable geopolitical consequences.

 Excerpt of an RT Interview with Sergei Lavrov -Dec 24/2012: From the proverbial “horses mouth”

RT: You're ending your year with a visit to India. Russia has been clear in its support for India in its aspiration to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. How do you think the much-criticized UN Security Council will benefit from India's participation?

SL: First of all, I would say that criticism is not always warranted. The latest wave of criticism was related to the fact that the Security Council allegedly cannot act on Syria. By the desire to see some action on the part of the Security Council the critics wanted to pass a resolution under Chapter 7 which provides for the use of sanctions and the use of force eventually. And Russia and China are convinced 100 percent that this would be a disaster and that this would be the beginning of a very slippery slope and would bring us to the Libyan scenario which we cannot afford anymore, and the region cannot afford. So those who say that the Council is ineffective should recall that this Charter of the United Nations provided for the veto right not just for the sake of being nice to the permanent members but because the founding fathers of the United Nations, having digested the unhappy experience of the League of Nations decided in their wisdom that unless five great powers see eye to eye on some world issue decisions would not be efficient. That's why the right of veto was included in the UN Charter on the very strong insistence of the United States.

Now of course the time passed since 1945, the Security Council was once expanded only in the category of non-permanent members, and now after several decades of the Council functioning in the unchanged composition, there is a very strong movement towards expanding its membership to better reflect pluralism of the world community. We're strongly in favor of this, we're convinced that the developing countries and first of all the new economic and financial leaders in the third world countries, like India and Brazil, for example, must be represented in the Security Council. And we would be in favor of making them new permanent members, provided of course a decision is taken to create new permanent seats, because this is the biggest split in the United Nations. One group of countries absolutely believes that there must be new permanent members; another group of countries which are also quite respectful members of the United Nations, categorically believes that there must be no new permanent seat and only non-permanent seats could be added.

Russia is convinced this type of division cannot be resolved by an arithmetic vote, that there must be consensus searching, especially since it was decided some time ago that the reform of the Security Council should be subject to broad agreement of member states. So any format of the reform which would be commanding general agreement of the member states would be supported by Russia. It would be very unfortunate if the reform of the Security Council is voted through because this would split the membership. And those who would vote against an imposed reform, in their eyes the expanded Security Council would lose legitimacy, not gain legitimacy. And more legitimacy is what we all want, and that's why the Council should be more representative. But in any case, while we are working very thoroughly to reach this general agreement on a reform we believe that India certainly deserves to be a permanent member of the Security Council.

-Syria: Bad terrorists vs. Acceptable terrorists?

RT: Like you said, Russia is permanently blocking attempts of some of UN Security Council members to pass a resolution that would allow a foreign intervention to Syria. But do you think a military action could still take place going around the UN like in happened in case of Iraq?

SL: Well not only in case of Iraq but also in case of the former Yugoslavia – yes, it is possible, and you just cited one example, there are some others. But I also feel that those who would like to interfere in the Syrian crisis don't want to do this without some kind of legitimacy, or at least without some kind of an action in the United Nations which could be used to justify this as being legitimate. And we can only stick to the interpretation of the Charter which is absolutely without any alternative and which says the Security Council is engaged in matters related to international peace and security, not to supporting one party in an internal conflict. And that's what is going on in Syria. Some people would like very much to internationalize this situation and to expand violence beyond the Syrian borders, attempts are being made, especially in cases when the refugees have to flee Syria because of the disproportionate actions by the government forces.

But on the other side, several armed groups of the opposition which are not united under a single command also resort to unacceptable methods absolutely contrary to international humanitarian law: taking hostages, staging terrorist attacks. And it is very disheartening that our Western colleagues in the Security Council started to refuse condemning terrorist attacks in Syria saying that yes, terrorism is bad but you must take into account the overall context of what is going on in Syria and why people resort to terrorist attacks. It's absolutely unacceptable, and if we follow this logic it might lead us to a very dangerous situation not only in the Middle East but in other parts of the world, if our partners in the West would begin to qualify terrorists as bad terroristsand acceptable terrorists.
-Damascus to Moscow: Chemical weapons not to be used ‘under any circumstances’

RT: One more reason that arises time to time that could actually okay the foreign intervention is Syria's possession of chemical weapons. Do you believe that Syrian will use chemical weapons, or is this another pretext for an invasion?

SL: I don’t believe Syria would use chemical weapons. It would be a political suicide for the government if it does. Every time we hear rumors, or pieces of information come to surface that the Syrians are doing something with the chemical weapons we double-check, we triple-check, we go directly to the government and all the time we get very firm assurances  that this is not going to be used under any circumstances. Our information is, which correlates with the information the Americans have, as I understand, that the latest reports about some movement of the chemical weapons were related to the steps undertaken by the government to concentrate the chemical stuff which has been dispersed in various locations into two sites, to make sure that it is absolutely protected. And it is also accepted by everyone including our Western colleagues (the Europeans and the Americans) that the biggest threat in this situation is the probability that the rebels might take hold of chemical weapons. And therefore, while recognizing this – when our Western friends say, ‘But still the responsibility is entirely with the Syrian government, even if the rebels take hold of it’ – it’s a very strange logic, because at the same time those very people encourage rebels not to negotiate with the government but to continue fighting and giving them arms, money, and moral and political support.

So, it’s a very controversial position. In general, the logic of those who say, ‘No negotiations with Assad’ is really very controversial and very dangerous. We are not justifying what the government is doing, they have been making a lot of mistakes, have been using force disproportionately; the security forces clearly were, and are, unprepared to face the public protests and armed protests in the cities and in the villages. They’ve been trained to counter a foreign aggression, not to keep law and order in a civilised manner.

But the opposition is provoking the government, as I said – resorting to terrorist attacks, taking hostages, and also introducing into this conflict the sectarian dimension which is very dangerous. It is already reverberating in the Muslim world – Sunni, Shia, Arabs, Kurds and ethnic and confessional sectarian composition of Syria is so complex that if chaos is established there, it would reverberate all over the region. But coming back to the present situation – if people who say "no negotiations with Assad", if they believe that his departure in whatever form is number one priority, then they must understand that for this geopolitical goal of theirs they would have to pay the price, but the price in the lives of the Syrians, of the Syrian civilians.

Our priority number one is not somebody's head. It's the cessation of violence and of the bloodshed. If they say that they want to save Syria and to save Syrians, then they should join us and should lean on all those who are fighting inside Syria to stop doing this and sit down to negotiate without any preconditions. And the fate of Assad must be decided by the Syrian people, not by the outsiders and by part of the Syrian opposition

Of course there is more. Read it at your leisure.
Speaking of India and Russia, as mentioned in the RT interview
The two nations have just signed a multi billion dollar weapons deal
The US media coverage of this deal is less then exuberant. Talk about “old cold war allies”
Really? Not so long ago the US was signing deals for arms and nuclear power stations
But that was different. I guess?

And, finally, one last bit of news... Russian Peacekeepers shot down in South Sudan
The helicopter was shot down by the South Sudanese Army. Proxy for the US and Israel
It was not an accident. Not in my opinion.
 South Sudan's army shot down a UN helicopter Friday, killing all four Russian peacekeepers on board

UN leader Ban Ki-moon said the helicopter was a "clearly marked" UN aircraft and demanded that those responsible be brought to account.
It called for South Sudan to "immediately" undertake an investigation and bring those responsible to account.
Odd that South Sudanese authorities claim they cannot reach the site of the crash?

Since I don’t believe that this was an accident. I do not happen to believe that the South Sudanese officials  cannot reach the crash site. Clearly the Army is present in the area. How is it that they came to blow the Russian Peacekeepers out of the sky?
“The artillery unfortunately shot down the aircraft mistaking it for an enemy one, because we had not been duly informed by the UN that the helicopter would fly in that particular area,” South Sudan’s army spokesman said late in the day.

Really? Or were they duly informed that a UN helicopter full of Russian peacekeepers would  be present and flying in that particular area? Just a thought.


This is in a rebel held area : Allegations of a 'gas attack'

Poisonous gas' used in a rebel-held neighbourhood in Homs, medics there say: 

This video shows medics in a besieged area in Homs city trying to help a person struggling to breath. They say he inhaled poisonous gas sprayed by regime forces in the rebel-held al-Bayada neighbourhood.

Al Jazeera cannot independently verify the accounts given by them.

Perhaps the person was the one messing around with some poisonous substance?
Or perhaps this person had an asthma attack.
What makes this 'story' appear all the more false is that the alleged casualty count is 7. Yes, allegedly this gas attack resulted in just 7 dead.

After seven people died from poisonous gas fumes in an assault on Homs.(alleged)

 "The situation is very difficult. We do not have enough facemasks. We don't know what this gas is but medics are saying it's something similar to sarin gas," Raji Rahmet Rabbou, an activist in Homs, told the Qatar-based television channel.
 We don't know what it is, but, we know it is something similar to 'sarin'. 7 dead.
Suuuure...... This is either complete bullshit. Or someone had an asthma attack and the NATO mercs filmed it for propaganda purposes or the NATO mercs messed something up ( mixing chemicals) and got themselves hurt.


  1. Replies
    1. Backatcha Freethinker!!
      I am going to update the post. Recall those Israeli journos in Syria?
      Today, it is being reported by the activists that Syria has used chemical weapons in an attack.

      I call bullshit on that "news"
      Watch whether this gets traction over the Christmas holidays
      Or will it go away
      Wonder if the NATO mercs were up to something and got themselves hurt.
      If this news is true at all?

  2. Hey LVB:

    I mentioned that WWM had wondered what your thoughts were on a happening in Syria

    Here it is! Took a bit of digging to find..

    WWM "One would think they would focus on the fact Syria evidently has some advanced anti-ship missiles that engages in evasive behavior so that seems to be a much bigger threat than the scuds to the West. Although the scuds could be sent into Jordan, Turkey, and Israel, with relative success, no?

    Would be interested to see LVB's take on it. "

    Thanks LVB hopefully WWM will pop back around

    1. to WWM: Well, I think you are correct in what you're saying about the advanced anti-ship missiles, most of which function about like cruise missiles, fly very low and fast to evade ship-to-ship radar tracking, so they have a high % of hitting their targets.

      However, as far as the US fleet goes, most of those ships have the CIWS (Close in Weapon Systems) which are defensive high-firing-rate gatling guns that are pretty capable and effective at shooting down not only low fast flying manned aircraft, but also missiles and drones. So, the US/NATO ships do have some defenses against those threats, althogh they could be fairly easy to overwhelm with enough anti-ship missiles.

      As far as the old Russian SCUD-B surface-to-surface missiles, as seen in the first Gulf War, they are not accurate and are much more than terror weapons to be lobbed at large general area targets like cities, and hoping to hit something of value, and cause panic, fear. They did hit a US barracks in Riyadh once, though, so they do cause some damage ocassionally.

      But I wouldn't think the SCUDs would be thought of as much of a threat from Iran - it would be the vastly more accurate and capable Iskander missiles from Mother Russian - now those are quite tricky, variable in their flight paths for evasiveness to being intercepted (by Patriot, Iron Dome or anything else), and are they are VERY accurate in hitting targets, whatever they may be.

      With NATO deploying the Patriot (improved PAC-3 model) in Turkey now, whether this is symbolic or something more, it could be just extra steps they are taking to enable to them to mitigate their losses should there be a sudden and massive barrage of Syrian and Iranian missile launches in many directions against US-allied gulf states - as you mentioned Jordan, Turkey, Israel, even Saudi, Kuwait and the Qatar - the biggest helper of the US in funding and importing the Al-CIAda Jihadi murderers-for-hire into both Libya and Syria.

      I hope that answers some of your questions. We can be certain that they are concerned about these possibilities unfolding -because what they really want is for everyone over there, mostly Assad, to just go away quietly, so that they can tell the world "we did this great thing", and provide only THEIR rhetoric as the truth of what really happened - the same goes for Iran - if Israel can do some assasinations combined with deep underground bunker busting strikes (using some "borrowed" US B-2 Stealth bombers to deliver them on target, of course), then the "world community" will have its "win-win" situation, and voila, no more bad guys left in the world with WMDs to worry about.

      Well, except for the very worst of the bad guys, with the biggest stashes of the most powerful WMDs ever invented and tested on earth - the globalist elite.

      So, there's that. :)

  3. Joyeux Noël à toi et ta famille, Penny.

    1. Joyeux Noël à toi et ta famille, Gallier!

      You made that very easy :)
      All the best to you, truly.
      All the best.


    1. Hey Kaspi
      thanks I read it and yah, there is some interesting stuff there
      some of that info has been covered previously
      the pankisi gorge, georgia US/Israel angle
      the politics at play in that part of the world is always interesting

  5. the Russians are the good guys syriab christains arebetter of under assad