"increase assistance to Lebanese secularists to resist Hezbollah's thugs "
The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End
- Thread starter ExposingAmericanLies
- Start date
"increase assistance to Lebanese secularists to resist Hezbollah's thugs "
And you're saying this would be a bad thing if anything was actually doing it, which at present no one is? What would you suggest we do about Hezbollah?
Settle the Israel-Palestinian issue first, and that'll solve the Hezbollah problem without restarting the Lebanese Civil War.
And what if Hezbollah's not happy with that settlement, or wants to speed things up? You think Israelis and secular Lebanese are obliged to sit back while they get assassinated and shelled by Shia expansionists?
Edit: In case you haven't noticed, the Lebanese Civil War is already in motion, albeit gradually. It started in 2005 when Hezbollah assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and subsequently threatened to cut the hands off anyone who tried to arrest the known culprits for delivery to the UN tribunal that was set up for this specific incident. They also ended up assassinating the Lebanese Army officer who tracked down the cellphones Hezbollah discarded at the bomb site after the attack; he was able to recover the users' identities from the phones despite their SIM cards having been removed (that's how the UN identified the perpetrators, but they have yet to stand trial and probably never will).
Your back-to-Cold-War scenario is very reassuring of your stance on world.
I didn't say it was going to be easy , but it is really essential, but I don't see a genuineness on Israel's part to enter into meaningful peace talks.
The other bit about Lebanon could be true. I never knew that.
Bells
Staff member
Tell that to the Syrians who are dying to try to bring democracy. The count is over 100,000 and counting.
Sometimes I get the sense there are those who are fully aware of the slaughter and that something could be done to prevent it, but they want it to continue with America kept to the sidelines as punishment for invading Iraq.
Are you talking about countries? Who are they?
I'm talking about people. I'm saying I get the sense that a lot of opposition to American involvement in Syria stems from anger that the US disregarded them when going into Iraq, and that it should therefore be condemned for any further activities in the Middle East regardless of the outcome or how many lives it may end up saving or how many Syrians actually want the help. I suspect there are lots of people speaking out against a US strike not because they believe Assad isn't massacring his people or because they're afraid Al Qaeda will take over in his place, but simply because they dislike the idea of Americans gaining any further influence in the region and would prefer that it be made to watch those begging for its help slowly dying. Maybe it would have been best if the US had simply handed Britain off to the Germans, too.
I could be missing something, but I can't understand the callousness in some of the statements I'm reading here and elsewhere. Like billvon telling us "oh, tough cookies, that's what you get for trying to disrespect the Russian veto" as if Russia's veto at the UN is more important than the uncounted votes of the people its weapons are killing. I wish those dying in the fields could be more aware of what's going on here, so when they ask "why is the world standing around watching us drop like flies?" they could see that it's because an example needs to be made of them so the US and its allies can be put in their place.
Bells
Staff member
Billvon's comments are steeped in ignorance of Russia's interests in its veto power:
According to some estimates, 10% of Russia's global arms sales go to Syria, with current contracts estimated to be worth $1.5bn (£950m).
Besides ammunition, recent sales have included military training aircraft, air defence systems and anti-tank weapons.
The current Syrian government also provides something else Moscow craves - the prestige of a navy base at the port of Tartus which is Russia's last base beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union.
Besides ammunition, recent sales have included military training aircraft, air defence systems and anti-tank weapons.
The current Syrian government also provides something else Moscow craves - the prestige of a navy base at the port of Tartus which is Russia's last base beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union.
Russia has much to gain financially from this war. If the war stops or the other side wins, then Russia stands to lose financially.
The Russian defense industry source, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Assad had started in recent months paying off a nearly $1-billion contract for four S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems and another $550-million order for 36 Yak-130 trainer fighter planes.
"They've already made the first payment for the Yak-130, likely 10 percent of it. Regarding the S-300, they've definitely made a first downpayment of 20 percent, but we are probably at half of the payment at this point," said the source.
Another Russian source who has links with businesses dealing with Syria, and two Moscow-based members of the Syrian opposition, said the Assad family's financial affairs in Russia have been personally looked after by Assad's maternal uncle Mohammad Makhlouf, from a room in a Soviet-era skyscraper hotel, overlooking the Moskva river.
Russian weapons accounted for 50 percent of Syria's arms imports before the uprising against Assad began in 2011, according to a Syrian defense ministry defector. Payments for those arms were usually deposited in the state bank accounts of Rosoboronexport, Russia's state arms dealer.
In 2011, when protests against Assad began, Russia sent almost $1 billion in arms to Syria's troops. Russia has often repeated that the weapons it sends cannot be used in the conflict and that it will continue selling arms while no international arms embargo exists on Syria.
Nevertheless, through much of last year and the start of this year as Russia was working with the West to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis, no new arms deals were signed with Assad. Rosoboronexport said Damascus had fallen to be Moscow's 13th or 14th biggest client last year.
That appears to have changed in the past few months as diplomacy between Washington and Moscow reached a dead end over a proposed peace conference in Switzerland. President Vladimir Putin approved more weapons sales, the Russian arms industry source said.
"About a year ago they put (some small arms deliveries) on hold. But after Putin got angry in the lead-up to talks about Geneva 2, the green light was given for limited small arms deliveries," the source said.
The source said shipments of weapons, large and small, may be on the rise again. Reuters analysis of international shipping satellite data appears to support that conclusion.
The data from Reuters parent company Thomson Reuters, which tracks ship movements based on satellite imaging of their radar signals, shows that at least 14 ships travelled from the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Oktyabrsk to Syria's port of Tartous over the past 18 months.
Nine of those trips were made since April, showing a dramatic increase in traffic on the route.
While it is not possible to say definitively what was in those ships, Russian defense experts say they suspect they could have been carrying arms. Oktyabrsk is one of the main ports used by Rosoboronexport to ship Russian weapons.
Moscow-based think tank CAST said the route is a common one for arms deliveries.
Apparently underscoring the secrecy of the shipments, most vessels making the trip switched off their radar while at Oktyabrsk only to turn it on again after setting sail for Syria.
"They've already made the first payment for the Yak-130, likely 10 percent of it. Regarding the S-300, they've definitely made a first downpayment of 20 percent, but we are probably at half of the payment at this point," said the source.
Another Russian source who has links with businesses dealing with Syria, and two Moscow-based members of the Syrian opposition, said the Assad family's financial affairs in Russia have been personally looked after by Assad's maternal uncle Mohammad Makhlouf, from a room in a Soviet-era skyscraper hotel, overlooking the Moskva river.
Russian weapons accounted for 50 percent of Syria's arms imports before the uprising against Assad began in 2011, according to a Syrian defense ministry defector. Payments for those arms were usually deposited in the state bank accounts of Rosoboronexport, Russia's state arms dealer.
In 2011, when protests against Assad began, Russia sent almost $1 billion in arms to Syria's troops. Russia has often repeated that the weapons it sends cannot be used in the conflict and that it will continue selling arms while no international arms embargo exists on Syria.
Nevertheless, through much of last year and the start of this year as Russia was working with the West to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis, no new arms deals were signed with Assad. Rosoboronexport said Damascus had fallen to be Moscow's 13th or 14th biggest client last year.
That appears to have changed in the past few months as diplomacy between Washington and Moscow reached a dead end over a proposed peace conference in Switzerland. President Vladimir Putin approved more weapons sales, the Russian arms industry source said.
"About a year ago they put (some small arms deliveries) on hold. But after Putin got angry in the lead-up to talks about Geneva 2, the green light was given for limited small arms deliveries," the source said.
The source said shipments of weapons, large and small, may be on the rise again. Reuters analysis of international shipping satellite data appears to support that conclusion.
The data from Reuters parent company Thomson Reuters, which tracks ship movements based on satellite imaging of their radar signals, shows that at least 14 ships travelled from the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Oktyabrsk to Syria's port of Tartous over the past 18 months.
Nine of those trips were made since April, showing a dramatic increase in traffic on the route.
While it is not possible to say definitively what was in those ships, Russian defense experts say they suspect they could have been carrying arms. Oktyabrsk is one of the main ports used by Rosoboronexport to ship Russian weapons.
Moscow-based think tank CAST said the route is a common one for arms deliveries.
Apparently underscoring the secrecy of the shipments, most vessels making the trip switched off their radar while at Oktyabrsk only to turn it on again after setting sail for Syria.
Lives are worth less than Russia making money. How comforting.
I agree with what you've said Bells.
So what you said is at the heart of the matter. If there was a way of letting Russia keep its base and get paid its debt along with a change of government then there would be no war.
I have not seen this discussed openly but I'm sure it has be thrashed around already in the Russia-USA meetings. Knock out Assad, and then Russia has to go into there and secure the WMD. Have they got enough men at their base?
And then invite the people to set up a national unity Government.
Well that would be one solution. Is it possible. Well it could be possible as long as there are no US boots on the ground, and all the other Nations don't join in at the same time as the Russians do.
Only the UN can sanction intervention against a sovereign state.
America has no right to punish anyone.
No matter how often it meddles and causes death and destruction
it never seems to learn.
America has no right to punish anyone.
No matter how often it meddles and causes death and destruction
it never seems to learn.
The UN is ignored all the time. It isn't really that useful of an organization.
Bells
Staff member
As CptBork clearly pointed out, you rather let people die because of your views of the US because you believe that they need to learn their place.
Astounding really.
Exactly the opposite.
I believe that if the US takes independent action, that more lives will be lost.
Stop trying to take the moral high ground.
Your viewpoint doesn't warrant it.
The following is a quote from Post #474 - CptBork - :
- quote - "Now as I said before, when I read and post Israeli-based rumours on what's happening in Syria, I only use them for colour commentary to present possible storylines to explain present events, especially when they're things not covered in the mainstream international press. Given that Israel has an obvious interest, right or wrong, in what people believe and understand about the Middle East and its conflicts, one must take its claims with a grain of salt just like one should do the same for all the other actors in the region, especially when they're claims that lack independent verification or based on alleged rumours in the global intelligence community that may or may not be true." - unquote -
I, dmoe, Post this as only a color commentary also - and also from sources found on the WWW - as far as to whether or not it is "absolute factual truth"...!?...well...that is not for me to deem...I, dmoe, Post it only in the interest of full discussion of any and all possible viewpoints.
- below is Pasted from link : http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130904/1...-Backing-Military-Action-in-Syria--Putin.html
- Paste Begin -
" Russia does not rule out agreeing to a military operation in Syria, provided Damascus' responsibility for using chemical weapons is proven - but only with United Nations approval, President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday.
In an interview with the Associated Press - (Link available, at end of Post, dmoe ) - and Russia's state TV network Channel 1, the Russian president stressed there is still no “exact information” about what exactly happened in Syria, or even that chemical weapons were used at all.
“It’s still not clear whether chemical weapons or simply some kind of harmful chemical substances were used,” Putin said."Mr. Putin said that if there is objective, conclusive proof of the use of chemical weapons, “then, there will be a reaction.” But he pointedly demanded to know what the United States would do if it turned out that the opposition rather than the Syrian government was to blame.
“If it is determined that these rebels used weapons of mass destruction, what will the United States do with the rebels?” Mr. Putin asked. “What will the sponsors of the rebels do? Stop the supply of arms? Will they start fighting against the rebels?”
"Asked what kind of evidence on chemical weapons use would convince Russia, Putin said “it should be a deep and specific probe containing evidence that would be obvious and prove beyond doubt who did it and what means were used.”
“It ought to be convincing,” Putin said. “It shouldn’t be based on some rumors and information obtained by the special services through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that.”
- comment from reader, moist, below -
moist - As the only Russian media source today... 12:46, 04/09/2013...RIA chooses to highlight that insignificant sentence out of it´s context, why is that?
Putin made a point and that is not that Russia will make a U turn and start to kill Syrians under USraeli command, clearly, that Russia want´s to see is clear evidence of NATO & Co´s accusations. Not second hand hearsay, rumours and eaves droppings from the only part in the world that benefits from this unrest, israel.
After the "humanitarian" bloodbath in Libya and the gruesome assassination of it´s leader under NATO guidance, it is clear to anyone that the US will not get any more mandates for it´s regime change business. It is all about the "Yinon-plan".
- Quoting: Fletcher Colins - below -
- Fletcher Colins - And he poses a question I would like to see the US Admin have to field:
"Mr. Putin said that if there is objective, conclusive proof of the use of chemical weapons, “then, there will be a reaction.” But he pointedly demanded to know what the United States would do if it turned out that the opposition rather than the Syrian government was to blame.
“If it is determined that these rebels used weapons of mass destruction, what will the United States do with the rebels?” Mr. Putin asked. “What will the sponsors of the rebels do? Stop the supply of arms? Will they start fighting against the rebels?”
- Paste End -
Link to Actual Associated Press Interview discussed ^^ above^^ : http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-interview-putin-warns-west-syria-action
Again - I Post ^^ all above ^^ only because I feel that any and all viewpoints should be openly and honestly considered.
- quote - "Now as I said before, when I read and post Israeli-based rumours on what's happening in Syria, I only use them for colour commentary to present possible storylines to explain present events, especially when they're things not covered in the mainstream international press. Given that Israel has an obvious interest, right or wrong, in what people believe and understand about the Middle East and its conflicts, one must take its claims with a grain of salt just like one should do the same for all the other actors in the region, especially when they're claims that lack independent verification or based on alleged rumours in the global intelligence community that may or may not be true." - unquote -
I, dmoe, Post this as only a color commentary also - and also from sources found on the WWW - as far as to whether or not it is "absolute factual truth"...!?...well...that is not for me to deem...I, dmoe, Post it only in the interest of full discussion of any and all possible viewpoints.
- below is Pasted from link : http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130904/1...-Backing-Military-Action-in-Syria--Putin.html
- Paste Begin -
" Russia does not rule out agreeing to a military operation in Syria, provided Damascus' responsibility for using chemical weapons is proven - but only with United Nations approval, President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday.
In an interview with the Associated Press - (Link available, at end of Post, dmoe ) - and Russia's state TV network Channel 1, the Russian president stressed there is still no “exact information” about what exactly happened in Syria, or even that chemical weapons were used at all.
“It’s still not clear whether chemical weapons or simply some kind of harmful chemical substances were used,” Putin said."Mr. Putin said that if there is objective, conclusive proof of the use of chemical weapons, “then, there will be a reaction.” But he pointedly demanded to know what the United States would do if it turned out that the opposition rather than the Syrian government was to blame.
“If it is determined that these rebels used weapons of mass destruction, what will the United States do with the rebels?” Mr. Putin asked. “What will the sponsors of the rebels do? Stop the supply of arms? Will they start fighting against the rebels?”
"Asked what kind of evidence on chemical weapons use would convince Russia, Putin said “it should be a deep and specific probe containing evidence that would be obvious and prove beyond doubt who did it and what means were used.”
“It ought to be convincing,” Putin said. “It shouldn’t be based on some rumors and information obtained by the special services through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that.”
- comment from reader, moist, below -
moist - As the only Russian media source today... 12:46, 04/09/2013...RIA chooses to highlight that insignificant sentence out of it´s context, why is that?
Putin made a point and that is not that Russia will make a U turn and start to kill Syrians under USraeli command, clearly, that Russia want´s to see is clear evidence of NATO & Co´s accusations. Not second hand hearsay, rumours and eaves droppings from the only part in the world that benefits from this unrest, israel.
After the "humanitarian" bloodbath in Libya and the gruesome assassination of it´s leader under NATO guidance, it is clear to anyone that the US will not get any more mandates for it´s regime change business. It is all about the "Yinon-plan".
- Quoting: Fletcher Colins - below -
- Fletcher Colins - And he poses a question I would like to see the US Admin have to field:
"Mr. Putin said that if there is objective, conclusive proof of the use of chemical weapons, “then, there will be a reaction.” But he pointedly demanded to know what the United States would do if it turned out that the opposition rather than the Syrian government was to blame.
“If it is determined that these rebels used weapons of mass destruction, what will the United States do with the rebels?” Mr. Putin asked. “What will the sponsors of the rebels do? Stop the supply of arms? Will they start fighting against the rebels?”
- Paste End -
Link to Actual Associated Press Interview discussed ^^ above^^ : http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-interview-putin-warns-west-syria-action
Again - I Post ^^ all above ^^ only because I feel that any and all viewpoints should be openly and honestly considered.
Bells
Staff member
Over 100,000 in 2.5 years.
You are saying that a tactical strike to possibly destroy his chemical weapon's cache is a bad thing? Really?
And what if the UN approves it? Would you still be carrying on as you are now? Or is the potential loss of lives if the UN does it make it more acceptable, as opposed to the US and France or even NATO doing it?
Your moral high ground results in the Convention that bans the use of chemical weapons in warfare being ignored and runs the risk of chemical weapons continuing to be used as a form of conventional weapons or as a tool of war now and in the future. This is the actual risk.
You keep making this about America. This isn't about the US Kremmen.
This is about ignoring and turning a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons in warfare. And when we do that, when we do fuck all because we want to set an example of the US, then we run the risk of many more lives being lost because our doing nothing and ignoring the Convention means that those who have them, will simply just use them knowing that no one will do a single thing to stop them or even sanction them for breaking the law.
To reiterate:
That right there is what this is about. It's not about the US and US foreign policy and US intervention.
It is about making sure that chemical weapons never becomes an acceptable weapon in war.
And if we do nothing, it will become just that.
Is that what you are comfortable with? You prefer that to a possible loss of lives with tactical missiles taking out a few military targets in Syria?
The irony and absolute hypocrisy of your argument Kremmen is that you are too busy going after the US while ignoring Russia's intervention in the Syrian conflict through it's arms sales, weapon supply, parking its ships in Syria's ports, providing tactical support and training to Assad's troops and vetoing all diplomatic sanctions against Syria. And the result has been tens of thousands of deaths because of Russia's intervention. Perhaps you should be focusing your whines about lives lost due to Russian intervention. Since you know, its continued intervention has resulted in the lives of Syrian civilians being lost and its weapons are are probably being used in chemical weapon attacks against those civilians.
Bells
Staff member
Well why would he?
Russia is making an insane amount of money off this war. They stand to gain the longer the war continues and the bloodier it gets. He has even sold Syria weapons and planes to protect itself against intervention. At the same time, Putin vetoes all sanctions against Syria, to the point where the UNSC can't even condemn Assad's acts because Russia vetoes it.
And through this veto power, Putin holds a lot of leverage and he benefits from it in many many ways.