Syria crisis: US attacks Moscow welcome for Assad

I think we're upset that there seems to be a glimmer of future peace in Syria. That would seriously disrupt our plans of taking out Assad.... For now.

I just see a childish temper tantrum from the USA here.

Did Putin not visit New York only a few weeks ago to try and forge a deal with Washington

Was it not Washington who told him to 'get stuffed mate'

Assad has used all the right language when he talks of change, transition and terrorism. Because we shot ourselves in the foot by refusing to work with Moscow, we will have to wait on the sideline to see what the plan is now.

I really do think that Dumb and Dumberer are running the show in the USA right now. I mean, do we want to see and end to Isis and a solution to the war in Syria or not?

a reply to: markosity1973

Yes I agree, why the US has to criticize Russia, when they refuse any dialogue with Russia over Syria. That's just plain stupid, in my opinion.

There is no real proof about Assad being a dictator, I was watching a documentary about how Syrian refugees are settling in in Germany.

Their sentiments where, that "Syria was a beautiful country and they would have stayed back if it wasn't for the civil war".

This sentiments really struck me, because that just goes to show that Assad, is not that evil dictator the West is portraying him to be. This whole Assad regime is a big all Western propaganda.

a reply to: butcherguy

Im sure if Russia directly attacked them, those hospitals wouldnt be standing, and you would be hearing about 100s of casualties..
I think we all expect some collateral damage occurring. Such is the way of war.

The quicker this ends the better for everybody..except for the Military Industrialists, the Bankers, the oil Barons, the........

Rangima'arie, Nohopuku, Rongo (peace)

a reply to: eluryh22

There is a problem with that. I thought most of us knew about the chemical weapons used by Assad being debunked,but I guess not.
globalresearch.ca... 63139

The attacks of March 19, August 24 and August 25, 2013 upon Syrian government soldiers indicate that the rebels were in possession of sarin both before and immediately after the chemical weapon attack at Ghouta of August 21, 2013. It would have been virtually impossible for the rebels to acquire chemical weapons so quickly in late August had they not already previously been in possession of chemical weapons. According to Seymour Hersh, December 19 ( published in The London Review of Books), “already by late May, the senior (US) intelligence consultant told me, the CIA had briefed the Obama administration on al-Nusra and its work with sarin, and had sent alarming reports that another Sunni fundamentalist group active in Syria, al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), also understood the science of producing sarin. At the time, al-Nusra was operating in areas close to Damascus, including Eastern Ghouta. An intelligence document issued in mid-summer dealt extensively with Ziyaad Tarriq Ahmed, a chemical weapons expert formerly of the Iraqi military, who was said to have moved into Syria and to be operating in Eastern Ghouta. The consultant told me that Tariq had been identified ‘as an al-Nusra guy with a track record of making mustard gas in Iraq and someone who is implicated in making and using sarin.’ He is regarded as a high-profile target by the American military.”

Now if that isn't enough for you,here are some other sources:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

"How can the government use chemical weapons, or any other weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its troops are situated?" he said. "This is not logical. That's why these accusations are politically motivated, and a recent string of victories of the government forces is the reason for it." Syria said Sunday that a U.N. team could investigate the site but a senior White House official dismissed the deal as "too late to be credible."

How telling our answer on the UN investigation before its even been done.

And this one is very interesting:
www.economist.com...

For anyone inclined to see America as an avenging angel of international justice, however, this fascinating scoop from Shane Harris and Matthew M. Aid at Foreign Policy will come as a bit of a downer. It seems the American government was well aware of the chemical-weapons attacks carried out by Saddam Hussein in the late 1980s, both against the Iranian army and against his own people, and not only did nothing to stop him, but in fact supplied him with the coordinates of Iranian force concentrations in full knowledge that he would use that information to poison them with nerve and mustard gas.

So in the end,there is at best a HUGE question over Assad having used Sarin gas on his own troops.It really wouldn't make a lot of sense. You are fighting a war and you go and gas your own fighters? America is not worried about using gas on some ME people if they get in the way.Or letting our current buddy that will in time be an evil dictator when we feel like it gas his own or others. America the corrupt. 'sigh'

a reply to: Dimithae

Without having looked into it (yet), I can't say I can say you are right that chemical weapons weren't used, nor can I say with certainty you are wrong. However, for the moment lets say you are 100% correct and that no chemical weapons were used.... I'm not sure how that changes anything.

If the U.S. "claimed" that Assad used chemical weapons and "crossed the line," then that is the reality they are living in as that is the story they were telling. They still had the door opened to take action. Whether or not the chemical weapons were deployed, they had the opportunity to unseat Assad... and did nothing about it. By their own rhetoric, clearly the U.S. want's Assad dethroned and I still believe they were hoping that ISIS would do the dirty work (and the "deal" with ISIS down the road).

I still maintain that regardless of their self-serving goals, Russian is diminishing ISIS and that is a good thing. If the U.S. had wanted the situation to evolve in a way that they wanted, they had ample opportunity (whether by the "true" facts or the situations they proposed as "facts.")

Side Note: I do my best not to be "that guy" that dismisses links outright because of the source.... but I have such a difficult time taking anything out of the Huffington Post seriously.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: Agit8dChop

When you look at all the mindless propaganda and lies coming out against Russia in Syria - you realize that these claims are not worth the paper they are vomited on.

I have no argument with you. I'm almost expecting to see a re-boot of Rocky IV.

The US's initial intervention was for the FSA to speed the ouster of Assad. Only later did the mission expand to degrading ISIL capabilities with the overlap of problems in Iraq. We certainly didn't ask Assad for permission to use Syrian airspace, and didn't go the UN route. The coalition (and Arab league) position is that the Syrian National Coalition is the rightful representative of Syria. The goal is still the removal of Assad along with hurting ISIL. Yet, the political will doesn't exist to intervene directly against Assad (at least openly).

Puts Assad in a no-win political situation. Can't exactly target coalition aircraft flaunting your sovereignty without escalating a fight with people who are at the moment not bombing you, but also haven't made a secret of the fact they really wouldn't mind dropping iron on you given a reason. Also, they are bombing those pesky ISIL strongholds, so it's probably best to ignore the indignity as long as possible.

You've also got Iran and Hezbollah intervening against ISIL and attempting to prop up Assad in this grand game where nearly every enemy of your enemy is still your enemy, too.

Russia from the start has opposed arming FSA and other groups. It seems reasonable to believe they are hoping it doesn't devolve into chaos a la Libya. They also seem to think that most of the anti-Assad groups are not angels. They also seem to give lip service to some sort of governmental reform or change in Syria, yet think Assad is preferable to the unknown resulting from armed conflict-- which again, given the choas in Libya post-Qadhafi and Iraq post-Hussein may well be reasonable. It's not like the US hasn't tolerated the stench of a dictator a time or two.

Putin has three main motives, and I won't pretend to know what order of importance he holds them.
1) He has the desire to stop Syria from turning into an ISIL stronghold. Russia is no stranger to Islamic terrorism.
2) He probably wants quid pro quos from any Syrian government. Not the least is some sort of assurance that they can maintain a presence in Tartus.
3) He gets to embarrass the West. He gets to exert his sway as a counter-balance to Western powers, and strengthens his/Russia's international position as a credible world power. The more the West, and the US in particular, protest without actually stopping him, the more face they/we lose. The political will to actually stop Russia from intervening to prop up Assad does not exist. And he knows it.

Arguably, Russia has a better legal argument as their excursion is endorsed by the government in situ. Ultimately, this matters not a damn, because again, Putin has the will to exert military force in Syria for the above reasons, and he's fully aware that the West does not. He can push and push to the brink and know that ultimately the other guy is going to blink.

originally posted by: InnerPeace2012
a reply to: markosity1973

There is no real proof about Assad being a dictator, I was watching a documentary about how Syrian refugees are settling in in Germany.

Listen, Assad is a dictator. He's not a nice man. He's a baddie. But you can't go around stomping on all the baddies in the world, and as much as I'd love to see Assad replaced by a stable democratic government, recent history suggests that multi-faction civil wars are a unpredictable at best, and horrendous at worst, method of doing so.

And since at the end of the day we don't have the will to actually get down to dirty, dirty business in Syria (thank God), the only thing here is to try to work with the Russians and find a mutually acceptable, if not beloved solution to the situation in Syria in regards to its current oppressive government and the whole ISIL problem. Otherwise we're going to be left on the outside looking in and being pissed as Russia just does what it wants. Because they will, and we won't. They care more than we do.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Assad is a dictator because Western media says so right? You show me proof or it just seems gullible to fall for what Western media is spewing.

A majority of Syrian people disagree with you, maybe you should listen to the people rather then relay on Western propaganda.

Bashar Al Assad Landslide Presidential victory despite Civil War - 2014

originally posted by: InnerPeace2012
a reply to: RadioRobert

Assad is a dictator because Western media says so right? You show me proof or it just seems gullible to fall for what Western media is spewing.

A majority of Syrian people disagree with you, maybe you should listen to the people rather then relay on Western propaganda.

Bashar Al Assad Landslide Presidential victory despite Civil War - 2014

From your link:

Voting was held only in government-controlled areas, excluding huge tracks of northern and eastern Syria that are in rebel hands.

Fascinating...


Tens of thousands of people don't typically die in civil wars taking place in lands under the benign and peaceful rule of el Presidente. And beloved Presidente's typically hold more than 55% of their territories. But hey, I'm just a guy on the internet with an opinion. I can't stop you from liking him.

a reply to: InnerPeace2012
The term "dictator" as used by the administration and the main stream media actually bothers me less than the term "moderate rebels."

From all I have seen, the term "moderate rebels" refers to the same brand of cut-your-head-off_stone-adulterers-to-death_throw-homosexuals-off-of-buildings_keep-women-under-lock&key&burkah people... except the "moderate rebels" are killing the people "we" want them to.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Syria estimated population at 22 mill (2014)..

News Source

A total of 10.2 million people voted for Assad. The voter turnout stood at 73.42 percent. No violations have been reported, Syria’s Higher Judicial Committee for Elections said as quoted by SANA news agency.

Now, do the math, give or take that's a lot of people in support of Assad, because there was civil unrest in parts of Syria due to the rise of FSA backed by West, do you not agree that civilians could not have had the chance to vote due to them being in Rebel held territory.

The numbers speak for themselves, and so a majority of people have no issue electing Assad as the president. There is your proof that most Syrians have no clue, that Western media see's Assad as a dictator.

a reply to: eluryh22

I can't tell the difference between a "moderate" or "radical" rebels. They all are terrorists, it's just all a play on words to make Assad look bad. The same kind of picture that paint on Putin as well...

I made a thread on this earlier, Syrian Crisis: The Game of Terrorists

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: InnerPeace2012
The term "dictator" as used by the administration and the main stream media actually bothers me less than the term "moderate rebels."

From all I have seen, the term "moderate rebels" refers to the same brand of cut-your-head-off_stone-adulterers-to-death_throw-homosexuals-off-of-buildings_keep-women-under-lock&key&burkah people... except the "moderate rebels" are killing the people "we" want them to.

More or less. I mean there are well-educated men and women in the middle east who want moderate and (relatively) liberal government. They just aren't any sort of majority, and I'm not they are well represented in the makeup of FSA.

The US is upset because they didn't get what they wanted I guess Obama will just have to stomp his feet and pout now. And by being upset about it shows that they had other plans .

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: InnerPeace2012
The term "dictator" as used by the administration and the main stream media actually bothers me less than the term "moderate rebels."

From all I have seen, the term "moderate rebels" refers to the same brand of cut-your-head-off_stone-adulterers-to-death_throw-homosexuals-off-of-buildings_keep-women-under-lock&key&burkah people... except the "moderate rebels" are killing the people "we" want them to.

More or less. I mean there are well-educated men and women in the middle east who want moderate and (relatively) liberal government. They just aren't any sort of majority, and I'm not they are well represented in the makeup of FSA.

Why does a well educated few got to do with Assad being dictator or not? Now your just making up stuff to reinforce your stance..

Opinions are fine, but disinformation isn't. Deny Ignorance...

originally posted by: InnerPeace2012

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: InnerPeace2012
The term "dictator" as used by the administration and the main stream media actually bothers me less than the term "moderate rebels."

From all I have seen, the term "moderate rebels" refers to the same brand of cut-your-head-off_stone-adulterers-to-death_throw-homosexuals-off-of-buildings_keep-women-under-lock&key&burkah people... except the "moderate rebels" are killing the people "we" want them to.

More or less. I mean there are well-educated men and women in the middle east who want moderate and (relatively) liberal government. They just aren't any sort of majority, and I'm not they are well represented in the makeup of FSA.

Why does a well educated few got to do with Assad being dictator or not? Now your just making up stuff to reinforce your stance..

Opinions are fine, but disinformation isn't. Deny Ignorance...

??? This wasn't even a reply to you... If you want to call Assad anything other than a dictator, that's your prerogative. Ditto toward the latest "election" -- the first ever in Syria with more than one candidate even! Progress!

originally posted by: InnerPeace2012
a reply to: eluryh22

I can't tell the difference between a "moderate" or "radical" rebels. They all are terrorists, it's just all a play on words to make Assad look bad. The same kind of picture that paint on Putin as well...

I made a thread on this earlier, Syrian Crisis: The Game of Terrorists

Here is a picture which clearly illustrates the differences between moderate rebels like the FSA and radicals like ISIL. I hope it helps.
Heres a hint they are all the same dudes. . . .

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Lol....I am sorry I still cannot make out the difference

/Sarcasm