Here we go again USA vs Syria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pickles2

sashadidi describes Putin's "message" very well.....and the message is a good one.
However, Putin is a hypocrite.
That message talks about many "wrongs"....but the truth is... he himself has been involved in many of them, & plenty more. ....and he has people arrested in Russia, if he doesn't like what they say.
He is ex KGB, he promotes himself in "stunts", which have been proven to be staged, to make himself look like Superman.....and I do not trust him.
Nevertheless, in this instance, the message is a good one, & if it helps to save lives/further conflict, that has to be good.
Cheers, Pickles.

---

Pickles, it looks a good message on paper but its best described as Machiavellianism, remember sadly Putin is only on the side of Russia in this conflict not the Syrians people and if he cared about people and NOT about getting one over on the "others" he would not support Assad etc by say not give them banking facilities in russia or supply anti aircraft missiles etc. But it may bit him on the bottom eventually if the "rebels" did win.
Also he may have a bit of a problem in that Assad may not "obey" him (remember staying in power is everything to most dictators) and surrender all the chemical weapons he has which will embarrass Putin . it s a game that may be out of everyone's ability to influence now......

What a can of worms. Seriously, Assad may have to be supported in the short term to stop this turning into WW111, Bob

9 September 2013




Hidden struggle among Syria's rebels

By Muhammad Ali BBC Arabic, documentary producer
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...13/09/1059.jpg

I first met Abu Somer during the early days of the battle of Aleppo in August 2012. Now he commands a Syrian rebel brigade laying siege to a military base near Saraqeb, about 50km (30 miles) to the south-west.

Why did he leave Syria's second city while its destiny still lay in the balance? He is silent for a moment. Then he mutters: "Some Islamic brigades wanted to assassinate me."

Ten months ago, when Abu Somer was among secular fighters confronting government forces on Aleppo's Salah al-Din front, there was no Islamist involvement in the action.

The majority of fighters wanted to overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and create a secular country in which the power to decide who governs rested in the ballot box.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...13/09/1060.jpg In this graffiti, "Down with Sharia court" has been crossed out and rewritten as "Yes to Sharia court"

But that changed and, after what he says were three assassination attempts against him, Abu Somer decided to leave to avoid infighting that would benefit the Assad regime.

He says he tried many times to contact the Islamist brigades to protest, but the answer always came back: "It is the shabiha [pro-government militiamen] trying to kill you, not us."

The potential for violent struggle between Syria's opposition factions was always there, but none of the rebels expected it to play out before President Assad was removed from power.
Sharia courts
On my last tour of rebel-held areas in northern Syria, the streets looked very different.

The black-and-white banners representing Islamist factions are now prevalent in most areas, instead of the green flag of the revolution.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...13/09/1061.jpg Nusra Front in Saraqeb, checking its fighters at the entrance of the town

Abu Qudama, a Jordanian member of the al-Qaeda-backed al-Nusra Front, commands the Security Brigade in Saraqeb, a collection of Islamist fighters from different factions that enforces rulings of the town Sharia court.

He says the people of Saraqeb supported Islamic rule and demanded his faction's intervention to administer civilian life.

One of the signs of the rising influence of Islamism is the Sharia court. In Saraqeb, the Sharia judge presides in the court, first over a car crash and later over an accusation of assault against another al-Nusra Front commander.

Outside the court, a civilian called Samir has come with a group of supporters to complain about a public flogging administered to his neighbour.

The man had been convicted for allowing his daughter to remarry before her period of enforced isolation had elapsed. For this he was flogged and is now too ashamed to show himself in public.

Samir rallies the crowd, demanding to know who gave legitimacy to foreigners to rule the country and asking whether they would leave after the war ended.

He says he is a Muslim but argues that Syria cannot be governed in accordance with the views of a single sect.

"When you build your house you cannot just stack bricks on top of each other - the different sects and ethnic groups are the cement that holds our country together," he says.

On the walls around us, there are slogans like "Down with the Sharia court in Saraqeb", "Who installed you as ruler upon us?" and "Where were the Islamists when the secularists started the revolution?"

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...13/09/1062.jpg Graffiti which reads: "Because it is a revolution so it is for all, freedom, dignity, equality"

It is reminiscent of the graffiti that used to appear secretly when Mr Assad's forces still controlled towns like this.

Like under the previous regime, popular demonstrations are banned in Saraqeb, although the security brigade says this is to protect civilians from the regular shelling of the town by government forces.
Islamic caliphate
Tensions between different factions were also on show when I sat with some fighters who had just stormed a loyalist checkpoint in a rare joint operation.

During a conversation about their vision of a future Syria, Abu Dujanah, an Iraqi-American who had recently joined the al-Nusra Front, expressed anger to hear fellow Sunnis talk about a parliamentary democracy with legislative elections.

For him this was the chance to establish an Islamic caliphate envisioned by the Prophet Muhammad in Greater Syria,

Would he return to the US if the regime fell? He answered no, he would continue his jihad until the "liberation of Palestine" from the Israelis.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...13/09/1063.jpg Sharia courts, such as this one in Saraqeb, are becoming more widespread

Another fighter, Abu Youssef, joined us saying he was a US citizen who had come from Qusair, which was retaken by government forces early in June.

He blamed the defeat on fighters who kept themselves remote from religion and God, and he especially condemned members of al-Farouq brigades who spent the day fighting and the night watching TV and singing.

"When you come back you don't feel you are on the battlefield, you feel like you are in a party," he said.

If the future of the struggle between the Syrian regime and opposition groups seems bleak, these scenes show the other hidden struggle between armed opposition groups with different agendas for the future state.

Since the BBC Arabic documentary The Battle for Syria's Courts was broadcast, Abu Qudama issued a statement saying he and al-Nusra will no longer run the courts. The Sharia courts however, are still functioning and are run by other members of the Security Committee.

News from "the other side of the coin"
Absolutely madness on both sides :(

Russia proves use of chemical weapons by Syrian rebels

How can Syra, Iran and Hezbollah respond to USA?

China trying on Syria's skin

I'm reading this thread, but I ain't contributing as much as I possibly could, because,.......I simply don't know the answer.
Cheers, Pickles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pickles2

I'm reading this thread, but I ain't contributing as much as I possibly could, because,.......I simply don't know the answer.
Cheers, Pickles.

---

Pickles I am like you and so far there are 3 solutions put by people with reasonable influence, Obama, Putin and Pope Francis.
I am not religious person but approve the Pope suggestion before the other two :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sashadidi

Pickles, it looks a good message on paper but its best described as Machiavellianism, remember sadly Putin is only on the side of Russia in this conflict not the Syrians people and if he cared about people and NOT about getting one over on the "others" he would not support Assad etc by say not give them banking facilities in russia or supply anti aircraft missiles etc. But it may bit him on the bottom eventually if the "rebels" did win.
Also he may have a bit of a problem in that Assad may not "obey" him (remember staying in power is everything to most dictators) and surrender all the chemical weapons he has which will embarrass Putin . it s a game that may be out of everyone's ability to influence now......

---

I'm sorry mate, I don't follow?

Is Putin a supporter of Assad? - Yes

Is he motivated by Russia's best interest? - Yes

Would it be the best outcome for Syria if Assad stayed? - A year ago, yes.

The best outcome for the people now it to separate Syria into two separate countries. I say that only because there's now too much bad blood between the two sides, and by now everyone has been forced to take a side. If it wasn't for the Western backed support to overthrow the government in the first place, Syria would not have "exploded" the way it did.

The outcome in Syria also impacts the future of international politics. A bit late for Russia to make a stand now, but IMHO, it's the right thing to do (regardless of the motives) and is better late than never. Would you prefer a single country to bully the rest of the world into submission. For that's exactly how the US has been behaving of late.

And just remember, it's not just Russia pushing against military intervention. Most of the world appears to be against it.

Quote:

---

The best outcome for the people now it to separate Syria into two separate countries. I say that only because there's now too much bad blood between the two sides, and by now everyone has been forced to take a side.

---

Sounds good, but it would simply create a North vs South Korea scenario, with one wanting control of the other = war
Who is going to draw borders = thats our land, **** off it's ours= war
Heaven forbid if the USA suggested this to the UN or anyone else, they would be accused of trying to reshape the Middle East...

Think we are forgetting this "USA/Syria" situation is over the fact that on at least 3 occasions in Syria alone, people have been killed on mass with chemical weapons....
Now I am not saying the USA should go & flatten half of Syria, but the military pressure they have placed on Assad appears to be fruitful.
Problem is, it's likely a number of those Chemical weapons were moved over to Syria when Iraq (Saddam) knew the he was going to be invaded.
Assad says he will give up his Chemical weapons with the threat of USA force removed.
Problem is no-one knows the amount of chemical weapons he has especially if there is a number moved from Iraq in earlier days with no records..
also he wants 30 days before giving up any info on them, why 30 days??
My guess is to once again ship/hide some & declare the rest, just as Saddam did
After declaring and giving up his stock pile, another chemical attack happens, but Assad says He gave them up to the UN, so it wasn't me.
There is no question of a chemical attack, only who launched it??
It seems removing Assad is no option either, there is no-one person who is backed by a majority to replace him & it will end up with the different factions fighting over control = more war.
Better the devil you know??
Seems a no win situation, buggered if I know, doesn't seem to be an answer :confused:
P.S
The USA are worried where & who has those chemical weapons, if Israel were to be attacked militarily, the USA may need to have boots on the ground & they don't want their military personal exposed/killed on mass by Chemical weapons

roverV8. There have been some very good opinions (not necessarily all the same....but hey, who knows the solution?) made in this thread, yours is another one...Good post.
Cheers, Pickles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roverv8

Think we are forgetting this "USA/Syria" situation is over the fact that on at least 3 occasions in Syria alone, people have been killed on mass with chemical weapons....

---

Yes, and if you believe that Assad's side was responsible for the chemical attacks, I can see your point of view. That's a story I have trouble swallowing tho. I've been following the development of the Syrian conflict with some interest. A number of smaller atrocities that have reportedly been committed by Assad's forces couldn't have been timed better to help the "rebels" cause. Now - Assad miscalculates and screws up the timing on one to go against him, I can buy that. But to continually shoot himself in the foot - I call that a setup. See posts 11 & 12 on the thread linked below,

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/cantina/15...y-going-2.html,

as well as posts 22, 25, 33, 34 and 41 on the following pages for a brief overview of the escalation of atrocities and incidents supporting external intervention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roverv8

The USA are worried where & who has those chemical weapons, if Israel were to be attacked militarily, the USA may need to have boots on the ground & they don't want their military personal exposed/killed on mass by Chemical weapons

---

cough, cough... bull**** , I believe it's a pretense to justify an invasion/intervention to remove Assad with force (considering other options outlined here failed) and install their own puppet.

As for the solution, if the 'rebels' weren't supported with weapons from Qatar and Saudi Arabia and intelligence & military training from the US, the situation would never have degraded to where it is, making it possible for everyone to live together in Syria. If you talked to people from Syria a few years ago, you'd find that Assad's government was pretty good by Middle Eastern standards and was most certainly much better than any government that is likely to take over. Nomatter what the solution, the Syrian people are going to be worse off.

Splitting the country into two is by no means a great solution, but IMHO is one of the best for the people of Syria. It's not likely to happen any time soon because the US is worried who would take control of the Sunni region (they've been having trouble appointing a suitable "leader" within the opposition for some time).

The situation challenges the notion that the US is good and Russia is bad, and may be hard for some people to accept. In reality neither is particularly good, both countries are doing what's in their best interests. That's understandable. In this instance however, it's in Russia's best interest to maintain the status quo through finding a peaceful solution, making it "the good guy". The US on the other hand wants to see a change in government, and the only way to achieve that is through conflict, making it the bad guy.

IMHO the main concern is that USA it is going to make the some mistake when helped Bin Laden.
People that are old enough to remember what happens during the 70's when Russia was the biggest threat to America and radical Islam was not as a concern of the USA .
The Americans began funding and training Islamic militants AKA the mujahideen would rebel the Russians out of Afghanistan and later become the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
To top up the big mistake then come the "smart president" Regan and under him funding of the mujahideen increased significantly and CIA Paramilitary Officers played a big role in training, arming and sometimes even leading mujahideen forces.
The "ethical" CIA provided funds to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar a mujahideen leader and alleged heroin dealer who worked closely with Bin Laden.
The rest it is history and well known to the young generation.
Are USA and their friends going to make the same mistake?
Apparently yes :(