It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Syria Instructs UK Military To Back Down With Its 'Colonialist' Agenda

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
This topic is not one id normally give any attention to, besides politicians never listen but the title alone makes me understand the European refugee crisis a lot more, I feel the west actually wants to colonise Syria, by Saying things like "We must take down the "Evil" Assad regime" while pretty much completely ignoring ISIS makes it all the more suspect.

From article...


Syria wants Britain to back down from involvement in the region. The Syrian Foreign Ministry reportedly sent letters to U.N. officials that accused the U.K. of “interference” and of leveraging its “colonialist experience,” the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported.

The letter accused the British Foreign Office of a “brazen” attitude. It also accused the government of exceeding its power as granted by the United Nations and other international laws. “The British government, they said, has no right to preach to others about democracy, human rights and combating terrorism when it itself has employed all its capabilities,” SANA said.

The condemnation follows closely with Europe’s involvement in the refugee crisis as well as its continuing debate on increasing military involvement. More than half of refugees who crossed the Mediterranean Sea and arrived in Europe -- 366,402 refugees and counting this year -- have been of Syrian descent, the U.N. refugee agency reported. The U.K., with Prime Minister David Cameron at the helm, has started an online campaign for accepting refugees, referred to as the “Refugee Welcome” movement. The country has committed to taking 1,000 refugees.

As to the military response, some British officials have said the U.K. has not been sufficiently involved with Syria’s domestic affairs. Chancellor George Osborne told Sky News he supports more military action. “I agree that the West has not done enough to contain ISIL [the Islamic State group or ISIS]. … We help with the intelligence. But, the question you ask is: Should British warplanes be bombing ISIL positions in Syria?” Osborne said.

He described an initiative by political leaders in 2013 to address the conflict. “The truth is this government, or the conservatives in the government, took to the House of Commons a year ago a proposal to intervene in Syria, and it was rejected by the House of Commons,” he said. “Personally I think it’s one of the worst decisions the House of Commons has ever made.”

Russia may be increasing its military involvement in Syria. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov Saturday to emphasize such involvement -- if true -- is “concerning”

“The secretary made clear that if such reports were accurate, these actions could further escalate the conflict, lead to greater loss of innocent life, increase refugee flows and risk confrontation with the anti-ISIL coalition operating in Syria,” the State Department said in a statement.

Russia has been a longtime ally of Syria amid conflict in the region. These latest moves would increase significantly its presence on the field, however, and not just through intelligence and military aid. The United States, on the other hand, has intervened with airstrikes to fight ISIS.

The State Department declined to reveal Lavrov's response to the phone call and the specific concerns Kerry expressed, the Independent reported. But the two nations’ leaders are expected to continue the discussion when they convene at the United Nations in New York later this month.



www.msn.com...





edit on 7-9-2015 by LeeAndrewCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2015 by LeeAndrewCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2015 by LeeAndrewCox because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: LeeAndrewCox

I think the reality here is both unpalatable, and little understood.

The fact is that BOTH Assad and ISIL, ISIS, IS, or whatever the preferred acronym is this week, are for want of a better word, villains.

The problem with that situation is that a) people do not like, or widely understand complexities of that nature, the duality of the problem being faced by regular Syrians every day. Nor do they wish to understand these things. Many would prefer to simply have the problem solved, while they get about their every day business without having lifted a finger or expended a singular mental resource upon the topic.

Furthermore, b) Those who do have an understanding of the situation in the region, which amounts to more than "Middle East issues? Bomb it." can be split into two distinct groups, with some peoples Venn diagram overlapping a little, but those are in a minority. Those two groups are, those with power and avarice, and those with compassion but no power to force that compassion through to action.

In addition c) This will not change. The balance will never be right, not so long as the people of my nation, and indeed other allegedly civilised nations, still allow their nations affairs to be decided by whomsoever lied well enough to become party leader, and leader of the nation. Only when the people have direct control over the affairs of their military, their intelligence agencies, and the running of their nations internal policy, by way of distributed and immediate democracy, i.e. people voting on the issues, every day, and the working day being divided up nationally so that they ALWAYS have time to read up on anything they do not understand well enough, will any other thing, ever result.

There is no way forward, save that which is chosen by those who have ceased to be accountable for their actions. I speak of course, of the leaders of the world, who are beholden unto nothing, whose allegiances are temporary, and whose subsequent acquisition of power was their endgame, and only the beginning of our suffering as "free" people in a "democracy".

The reality is, that Assad is a cruel bastard, surrounded by cruel bastards, and ALL of the cruel bastards in that theatre, one way round or another, were supplied, funded and trained by a select number of nations intelligence and military organisations, INCLUDING Britain, but also the US, Russia, and some by private organisations with a vested interest in anyone who might want to detonate or bullet riddle things, being able to do so, to have a sandbox to play in. It is good for business, and so it cannot end. Even if it does, like a Grand Prix, or an Olympic Games, it will be held somewhere else, if it is not held in Syria. The Arenas of old are now larger than nation sized, and are no longer entertainment, but are far more monetised than ever.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: LeeAndrewCox

Syria Instructs UK Military To Back Down With Its 'Colonialist' Agenda - So Syria should, the UK is a vassal state of the US so their Colonialist' agenda is to do exactly what the Oboma instructs them to do, which is not what the US does because otherwise it would get a bit obvious so they tell the brits to out a Colonialist' aspect to their work.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Before Osbourne and Cameron start talking about going into Syria and boots on the ground. I want to hear what the goal is and what the exit strategy is. Until those questions are answered I'm not going to support a war that could potentially make things worse. I assume it won't be Osbourne and Cameron leading the charge on the ground or putting themselves in harms way. I can't see how bombing Syria is going to improve any of the problems, from Isis to the refugee crisis.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

For a number of years our government was perfectly happy with the Assad family in power but suddenly for no apparent reason that changes and Assad has to be removed. I suspect Syria has good cause to ask the UK to butt out - colonial arguments sounds dated and stupid though.

The big question is why? Our government doesn't go after every dictator only ME ones, what about Mugabe "The only white man you can trust is a dead white man". Now there you do have a direct threat, but has Assad ever threatened the West? No he hasn't and isn't it up to the people within a country to change things, not outside influence because we all know how that works out - hence the refugees.

You are right we don't necessarily understand the Syrian situation, but I can recognise - had enough practise over the last decade or so, when the West is deliberately destabilising a country. Its not done for our benefit as you say, its done by that tiny group of power brokers whose only interest is using tax payers money to avoid risking their fortunes and ultimately to amass even larger private fortunes and damn the human cost. So even if we go after our own politicians, cameron and blair are only some of the public faces of this group and wouldn't own up to who pulls their chains - probably because this group has enough on who it uses, to destroy each and every one of the them publically and none of them could face the humiliation and loss of their own family and assets. Simply put they don't live by the laws they create for us all to follow.

I suspect once the sand has followed we will see a huge chunk of Syria go into Israeli hands simply because of the world pressure to stop stealing Palestinian land and Israel wants to expand settlements. True, people are leaving there but the ancient supposed borders have not yet been reached. I also read somewhere that there is oil off Syria's coast yet another incentive etc. But one does have to ask the question when did we become Saudi's little secret soldiers/lackies?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:19 AM
link   
I would speculate that the motivation for taking down the Assad regime is due in part to - the expansion of regional influence, and security of Israel. But maybe there is more to it as Russia is backing them (Assad regime).

But what do I know..

I'm suspect of all conflicts to be something other than what they appear to be.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   
This is what happens when you have an American power vacuum in Europe. Someone has to take the lead and get things done, the Brits are certainly better at foreign policy than say, the Germans or French. The issue is they don't have the collective muscle that Uncle Sam has, astute maneuvering only gets you so far. I see Europe is generally sliding towards anarchy, their own inaction and inability to do BIG things is going to eat at them from within. This is what everyone has been asking for for years - the USA to to stop meddling in things. Now others are meddling. I'm all for letting Europe figure out Europe (and maybe the middle east too.) As long as the US doesn't get pulled into a war after it all goes to # in 5-10 years.

V



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: nOraKat

Looks like the start of the conflict in Syria was caused by 5 years of drought!!

The Background To The Syrian Conflict
















posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: woodwardjnr

I think the best plan is to copy what we did in the Balkans (eventually). Air strikes followed by ground forces, enforce a peace then bring all sides to the table. Those that won't talk, get bombed either to oblivion or to the table.

The Balkans faced similar problems - different ethnic and religious groups fighting it out. Look at them now, some are EU members and others are looking to join.

There comes a point when we just have to suck it up and dive in. Sitting on the side lines, or just dropping bombs on them from afar won't achieve much.

But, as always, the West is damned if we do and damned if we don't.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco

That makes brilliant sense - certainly much better then sense than convoluted conspiracy theories about Western plots for oil pipelines or Israeli hegemony over the region....



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason




I think the best plan is to copy what we did in the Balkans (eventually).


yes...thanks for that.




The Balkans faced similar problems - different ethnic and religious groups fighting it out. Look at them now, some are EU members and others are looking to join.


the ethnic and religious divide in Balkans is bigger now than it ever was. Trust me...I lived here back then...and am living here now.

Bosnia is a failed state now which will...if given a little push...dissolve into three separate ethnic entities...all unable to live with each other since the 90's.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Croatia, Slovenia and to a lesser extent Serbia seem to be doing ok though..

Either way, it's better than it was in the 1990's with you lot busy killing each other because you worshipped a different spaghetti monster in the sky...



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason




Croatia, Slovenia and to a lesser extent Serbia seem to be doing ok though..


That's your view...people that live here would disagree.




Either way, it's better than it was in the 1990's with you lot busy killing each other because you worshipped a different spaghetti monster in the sky...


there were no ethnic conflicts prior to 90's. Balkan wars were never about religious motives...strictly ethnic fueled by the western agenda to topple the Yugoslav communist regime. The ethnic stuff server as a fuel to get the conflict started. As you probably know...in the communist regime, religion didn't play a big part...therefore it was never a motive for the wars.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason it just seems like a lack of clear strategy and exit plan only makes things worse. We didn't need to be in Afghanistan for over 10 years. I don't think bombing Syrian infrastructure is going to help the situation. Or help the refugee crisis. We need to prioritise what is more important defeating Isis or getting rid of Assad. Then once we replace Assad we need to make sure we don't put Isis influence in charge or another tyrant. There are so many potential conflicts on the line, from Ukraine to Iran.where does it all end. Seems like we are destined to endless conflict and potentially an Armageddon situation prophecies fulfilling the beliefs of religious nuts the world over. Isis want western boots on the ground, it will be the calling to every Muslim extremist on the planet. I can't support the current strategy, to many "unknown unknowns"to borrow a phrase


edit on 7-9-2015 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: stumason




Croatia, Slovenia and to a lesser extent Serbia seem to be doing ok though..


That's your view...people that live here would disagree.




Either way, it's better than it was in the 1990's with you lot busy killing each other because you worshipped a different spaghetti monster in the sky...


there were no ethnic conflicts prior to 90's. Balkan wars were never about religious motives...strictly ethnic fueled by the western agenda to topple the Yugoslav communist regime. The ethnic stuff server as a fuel to get the conflict started. As you probably know...in the communist regime, religion didn't play a big part...therefore it was never a motive for the wars.

Please change the record. Why is it that whenever people start shooting each other they blame the west instead of their own suppressed intolerances. Tito kept a ruthless lid on the religious and ethnic divides as you well know.

Why would the west want to topple a communist regime that was a thorn in the side of the soviets? Why would it want to destabalise a country that has nothing, like oil for example, of benefit to the west. In fact, completely contrary, Yugoslavia was great for western tourists who wanted a cheap holiday!!

It was the power vaccum after Tito died that enabled all the little tinpot wannabe dictators throughout Yugoslavia to take power. The best way of getting support....ethnic conflict. It works every time because people are stupidly hateful of differences and always want to blame others for their problems.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

In comparison to how things were, I don't think there is any argument - life is better now they have peace and stability. No if's but's or maybe's and certainly not because you don't think so - it is obvious you have an axe to grind against the "West", so I'm now moving on from this discussion.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Personally, Assad is the lesser of two evils. We should attack IS and force everyone else to the table. Give Assad a way out, protect the secular state and have peacekeepers there, preferably from Islamic nations if possible until the functions of State are restored to normalcy, all under the guidance of the EU or the UN.

Sounds too simple doesn't it?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Now all the media hype about the dead Syrian child on the beach is making sense. The dead child card is always a winner with the masses to stir up some hate. I do find the media machine really pathetic myself with so much fuss over one death, but so little fuss over the deaths of so many. Anyway...

Assad has been on the back foot for a long time in terms of western support, once Gaddafi fell is when the heat got turned up in Syria. Now that Russia has recently instituted a military push to help get some stability back in to the country, the west cannot let this go and has to join in.

Tony Abbot sounds happy that he can now get some bombing runs going on in Syria. I have not heard him voice any support for Assad so I am not really sure where Australia will fit in the region. I would like to think there is a more reasoned and coordinated approach with the use of force in this area, but considering just how messed up things are I have no idea.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

At the moment, all Western efforts in Syria are focussed on IS. Hardly any, if any at all, Syrian Government forces have been targeted since the air strikes began.

The Russian involvement seems to want to prop up Assad against IS (and other rebels). It isn't necessarily in conflict with Western aims, provided the West doesn't decide to strike at Assad assets as well and the Russian's don't start attacking the FSA for example... It could get even more complicated than it already is, if you can believe...



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

I can only imagine just how complicated it is, the reality is most likely much worst.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev



Now all the media hype about the dead Syrian child on the beach is making sense. The dead child card is always a winner with the masses to stir up some hate.


Wasnt that the exact reason that the first Iraqi War started ? The young girl that testified in front of the UN that Saddam's forces were killing babies in the incubators ? The ones that were proven false and the UN had put her up to it ?Why not , if it causes wars , go for it....




new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join