Britain in secret talks with Syrian rebels

page: 3
80
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   
It looks like the rebels went right back to work after the meeting. Peaceful protesters?

Explo sions heard in Syria's capital, Assad vows crackdown will continue


Residents in the Syrian capital woke up to two loud explosions Sunday amid unconfirmed activist reports that a major building belonging to the ruling Baath party had been by hit several rocket-propelled grenades.




posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
It looks like the rebels went right back to work after the meeting. Peaceful protesters?

Explo sions heard in Syria's capital, Assad vows crackdown will continue


Residents in the Syrian capital woke up to two loud explosions Sunday amid unconfirmed activist reports that a major building belonging to the ruling Baath party had been by hit several rocket-propelled grenades.


Why does it have to be one thing or the other? Rebellions are complex events. As Libya showed, unless there's some clear organising force to direct things, it gets messy and complicated very quickly. It seems that peaceful protest has been met with disproportionate deadly force by the Syrian government, then somewhat later, elements of the Syrian military have rebelled and brought their way of doing things to bear. But this doesn't make all protesters by implication supporters of armed revolution. Nor does it cancel out their genuine wishes for a free society.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

It's not "free press" or "neutral", nor are they even reporters; they're just talking heads reading lines from a pre-written agenda, an agenda that has NO room for the nationalism of any country OTHER than the MSM network's very own.
edit on 20-11-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



In that respect, they're exactly like President Assad and his regime.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
It looks like the rebels went right back to work after the meeting. Peaceful protesters?

Explo sions heard in Syria's capital, Assad vows crackdown will continue


Residents in the Syrian capital woke up to two loud explosions Sunday amid unconfirmed activist reports that a major building belonging to the ruling Baath party had been by hit several rocket-propelled grenades.


Why does it have to be one thing or the other? Rebellions are complex events. As Libya showed, unless there's some clear organising force to direct things, it gets messy and complicated very quickly. It seems that peaceful protest has been met with disproportionate deadly force by the Syrian government, then somewhat later, elements of the Syrian military have rebelled and brought their way of doing things to bear. But this doesn't make all protesters by implication supporters of armed revolution. Nor does it cancel out their genuine wishes for a free society.


I never implied any of that. If you saw otherwise it means you took my words out of context. Are you saying that you are certain that this "uprising" is completely homegrown and that there is no foreign intervention via proxy whatsoever?



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
It looks like the rebels went right back to work after the meeting. Peaceful protesters?

Explo sions heard in Syria's capital, Assad vows crackdown will continue


Residents in the Syrian capital woke up to two loud explosions Sunday amid unconfirmed activist reports that a major building belonging to the ruling Baath party had been by hit several rocket-propelled grenades.


Why does it have to be one thing or the other? Rebellions are complex events. As Libya showed, unless there's some clear organising force to direct things, it gets messy and complicated very quickly. It seems that peaceful protest has been met with disproportionate deadly force by the Syrian government, then somewhat later, elements of the Syrian military have rebelled and brought their way of doing things to bear. But this doesn't make all protesters by implication supporters of armed revolution. Nor does it cancel out their genuine wishes for a free society.


I never implied any of that. If you saw otherwise it means you took my words out of context. Are you saying that you are certain that this "uprising" is completely homegrown and that there is no foreign intervention via proxy whatsoever?


I'm as certain about it as you are about the opposite idea, let's put it like that. Just because you made up your mind to accept a particular hypothesis about Libya doesn't mean that same thing is being played out in Syria. What worries me is the tendency on this forum to deny the idea of oppressed people having a wish for freedom. Whenever the possibility of western intervention appears, people seem to make excuses for the regimes that are being toppled, simply because they happen to be in the position of an enemy to the perceived ATS members' enemy of The Powers That Be.

Let's ignore the western powers for a moment and focus on the arabic states who have undergone revolution in the last year or so. Let's use a scientific line of thought to test my own theory to destruction. Can we find a good reason why the peoples of those countries wouldn't have a wish to overthrow their autocratic leaders and set about doing it of their own volition, peacefully at first?
edit on 20-11-2011 by FlyingSpaghettiMonster because: clarity
edit on 20-11-2011 by FlyingSpaghettiMonster because: more clarity



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
 


Look, I think you're missing the point. Perhaps it's my fault for not explaining it very well. I am not doubting that there is an unhappy population base in Syria who would like a new government. I'm only pointing out the probability of U.S. intervention due to their history in the whole region. Regardless of all the other U.S. meddling in that region let's focus on Syria.

The U.S. is known for conducting raids into Syria just like they do in Pakistan.

US helicopter raid on Syria kills eight

The U.S. has even let their intentions known of intervening in Syria as recently as last month.

U.S. and Iran discuss Syrian crisis in back-channel diplomacy: report

Check this part out:


“They spoke about putting in place a high military council on the Egyptian model, with generals running the country and responsible for making senior strategic options,” the paper quoted the Syrian opposition figure as saying.


They are talking about installing a government like they did in Egypt, and now Libya. I know you think I'm being closed minded, but I assure you my mind is open to all possibilities. No offense but it's you who seems closed minded.

In my opinion it would be foolish to not believe the U.S. will take full advantage of this situation.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
 


Look, I think you're missing the point. Perhaps it's my fault for not explaining it very well. I am not doubting that there is an unhappy population base in Syria who would like a new government. I'm only pointing out the probability of U.S. intervention due to their history in the whole region. Regardless of all the other U.S. meddling in that region let's focus on Syria.

The U.S. is known for conducting raids into Syria just like they do in Pakistan.

US helicopter raid on Syria kills eight

The U.S. has even let their intentions known of intervening in Syria as recently as last month.

U.S. and Iran discuss Syrian crisis in back-channel diplomacy: report

Check this part out:


“They spoke about putting in place a high military council on the Egyptian model, with generals running the country and responsible for making senior strategic options,” the paper quoted the Syrian opposition figure as saying.


They are talking about installing a government like they did in Egypt, and now Libya. I know you think I'm being closed minded, but I assure you my mind is open to all possibilities. No offense but it's you who seems closed minded.

In my opinion it would be foolish to not believe the U.S. will take full advantage of this situation.


To be fair I'm not having a go at you per se, but a general trend I see in many other parts of the forum. Actually I accept that Western powers have a vested interest in a bit of real politik (it's all italics today, isn't it?) and that technocrat governments would be very useful in that regard. Italy and Greece are two examples that spring to mind.

That's the problem of a spontaneous - and by its nature - unfocused revolution. Once the regime is toppled, a vacuum is left, and because the rebels have spent all their time and energy fighting, little or no thought has gone into how they can quickly set up the structures of free government they've lacked for so long. We're seeing the results of that in Egypt.

I suppose my thought is that such a scenario has arisen not directly through a predetermined western strategy, but out of a lack of organised political thought among the rebels, followed by an opportunistic intervention of Western powers after the fact, to implement the 'Shock Doctrine'.
edit on 20-11-2011 by FlyingSpaghettiMonster because: its



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
 


It appears the Free Syrian Army has claimed responsibility once again:

Syria insurgents attack ruling party building in Damascus as Arab League deadline passes: reports


The Syrian Free Army, comprising army defectors and based in neighbouring Turkey, claimed responsibility for the attack on the Baath Party building in Damascus.


Just in case you didn't know who they are exactly. Here is a bit of information on them. This is from CNN so I can't guarantee it being completely accurate.

Who and what is the Free Syrian Army?

I'm sorry, but this is looking more and more like a Western sponsored uprising every minute. As I admitted before, the population of Syria is fed up so their unhappiness is certainly a major factor. My interpretation of your statements so far is that you are in complete disbelief that the U.S. and it's allies may have a helping hand in all of this which is why we seem to be in disagreement.
edit on 20-11-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: Sorry for all the link fail. It's fixed now.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
 


It appears the Free Syrian Army has claimed responsibility once again:


The Syrian Free Army, comprising army defectors and based in neighbouring Turkey, claimed responsibility for the attack on the Baath Party building in Damascus.

Source[ /url]


Just in case you didn't know who they are exactly. Here is a bit of information on them. This is from CNN so I can't guarantee it being completely accurate.

[url=http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/17/who-and-what-is-the-free-syrian-army/?hpt=hp_t3]Who and what is the Free Syrian Army?


I'm sorry, but this is looking more and more like a Western sponsored uprising every minute. As I admitted before, the population of Syria is fed up so their unhappiness is certainly a major factor. My interpretation of your statements so far is that you are in complete disbelief that the U.S. and it's allies may have a helping hand in all of this which is why we seem to be in disagreement.


It is of course entirely possible that some covert action to assist armed rebellion may be taking place. I'm not naive about the practises of the USA's intelligence services. All I'd maintain is that armed struggle can also occur by the simplest means, i.e. army deserters disobeying orders to fire on civilians and turning their weapons on the government instead. In addition, should the result of that assistance be a functioning free state, would it necessarily be a bad thing? Means to an end etc. Nothing is simple or pure unfortunately, it's all a balancing act to get the best bargain possible. The worst scenario (apart from a bloody crackdown and re-establishment of Assad's regime) would be technocrat placeholders delaying steps towards democratic rule, leading to further anger in the population, another uprising and the complete collapse of the Syrian state. Nobody wants that, not even Assad.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed


This is starting to look just like the lead up to the Libyan mission. Pretty soon NATO countries will be arming these rebels whether directly or indirectly if it's not already happening.

NATO will need to be more careful with Libya though especially since the Russians are also making their presence felt in the region militarily and politically.

At lease Assad has agreed to allow observers into Syria which hopefully will calm some of the tensions.

www.independent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


It is reported today that 'The Arab League' have already against sanctions':

news.sky.com...



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Neo-liberal imperialist policy? That's a new one.

We will have to agree to disagree that Western style media is worse or equivalent to the totalitarian control of those states over said media.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
A bit of info on the Syrian army rebels, from the usually very reliable Guardian:

Free Syria Army Gathers on Lebanese border

Purely for the purposes of info.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
 


Here is some information pertaining to the theories I had earlier mentioned.

Must Read Article About What is Really Going on in Syria

I urge you to read that when you get the chance. It makes a lot of sense in my opinion.





top topics
 
80
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join