Russia : We will take DRASTIC measures if the west doesn't stop their BS with Syria

Originally posted by aaronez
Most the old socialist regimes in the Middle East (e.g. Egypt, Libya) have now fallen and Syria is next. This is inevitable so mark my words. Then Russia will fall as the people are starting to stir now and this threatens Putin. Putin will be gone within 12 months and the New World Order will then begin to arise...

I doubt Putin is the hardliner people think he is. That is "stays" in power, I believe. But then, we all know the elections in the US were fixed as well.

In the case of Russia, Gorbachev, Putin and that old drunk Yieltsin have been a great "asset" to the US. And along with the fall of "communism", has brought nothing but criminality along with McDonalds. Same applies to China, where the west has followed in old Englands footsteps. But of course, nobody has in mind, that it was England that tried to "legalize" opium trade.

I don't know what will follow Putin, but I doubt he wants an all out war, so he will play his cards to ensure that whoever follows will not be another Breshnev, for the detrement of the other parts of the world.

I said "I hope" above, not because I believe either China or Russia will. Neither of these countries will, they simply don't have the balls. Because both nations, are "on defence", and not on offence. They simply are not playing the chess game, understanding that the US has to be checked ... not mated, but checked.

Today the US is the mafia boss ... literally speaking, and the US needs to have a "hit" far more than Iraq, or Iran does. Literally.

But, I don't see that happening from China or Russia. It has to come from "anonymous" sources.

Russia again? If they are so concerned about Syria? Why don't they enforce a no-fly zone or send peace keepers? Better yet, why don't they vote on it in the UN? If anyone remembers it was both the Chinese and Russians who abstained from voting during the last UN Security Council measure regarding Libya. Vote for crying out loud!

They are permanent members of the Security Council, and their vote counts as much as any other nation. No, they will sit on their hands and do nothing. Always playing both sides against the middle. Typical Russian foreign policy. If they care so much about their business and strategic interests in Syria? Why are they filling the void with rhetoric instead of action? It is a very good possibility Assad is going to be ousted from power. It would be in Russia's best interests to endear themselves to the Syrian people at this crucial time. What is to stop whoever takes over from giving Russia the pink slip for their inaction? Nothing!

As long as their is consensus among members of the UN and neighbors in the region. I see no problem with international intervention, but only with a majority signing off on it. If Russia sits this one out when it is time to vote? Then they have themselves to blame if things sour regarding their relationship with Syria, and no one else. If they have proof of others aiding the Syrian rebellion? Prove it!

Russia - then the Soviet Union - also fought to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Tens of thousands murdered, executed, snipers, persecution of doctors who care for wounded patients, stripping pro-revolutionary people of a decent way of life for generations to come. Discrimination, jails, and persecution. We know these methods from Hungary.

Russia is a bit discredited in meddling in the affairs of foreign countries for a while. Just because we can also suspect the motives of the US (see later), we should not let the Russian Empire assist and abet a third-rate tyrant crush a civilian rebeliion in a far smaller country - mostly for geopolitical reasons. For crush it they will, and brutally, if no one intervenes. See, they are STRONGER than the opposition, militarily.

What happened in Hungary in the anti-Soviet revolution?
The world simply stood by as the Prime Minister was literally pleading the international community to help on Nov. 04, 1956. Soviet troops rolled in and a violent rampage of vengeance started against everybody who dared to sympathize with the Revolution. The troops sought the young and wounded from door to door - as they do now in Syria.

OK, I admit Syria is interesting to the West partly because it is next to Israel, and involved on the wrong side of the Iran partisan debate. I also agree that something should have been done long ago in places like the Congo where almost the number of a Holocaust had been murdered in the past ten years, teen gangs with Western-provided weapons terrorise the countryside, and violent rape has become a way of life for the majority. (BTW that would have never happened without the West providing weapons to the thugs who rule now.)

Even if no one goes to Congo, why does that stop an international community from defending the victims of the Syrian dictator from such crimes? So what if it profits some corporations involved with the military? So what is Israel likes it? (Why, is that a crime, come on!)

Just read this article and see a couple of videos:

"In Syria today, wounded patients and doctors are pursued, and risk torture and arrest at the hands of the security services," said Marie-Pierre Allié, MSF president. "Medicine is being used as a weapon of persecution." Most of the wounded do not go to public hospitals for fear of being arrested or tortured. When a wounded person is admitted to a hospital, a false name is sometimes provided to hide his or her identity. Doctors will provide false diagnoses to help patients elude security forces, which search for patients with wounds consistent with those sustained in protests and demonstrations....
...The injured are largely treated in clandestine treatment facilities by doctors trying to fulfill their commitment and duty to provide medical assistance. Improvised health clinics have been established in apartments, on farms, and elsewhere. Simple rooms outfitted as makeshift operating theaters, known as "mobile hospitals," are used for surgical procedures. Hygiene and sterilization conditions are rudimentary and anesthesia is in short supply. Furthermore, the mere possession of drugs and basic medical materials, such as gauze, is considered a crime. "The security services attack and destroy the mobile hospitals," said a doctor who requested anonymity. "They enter houses looking for drugs and medical supplies."...
..."We are constantly being pursued by the security forces," said another physician. "Many doctors who treated wounded patients in their private hospitals have been arrested and tortured."

Doctors Without Borders - Syria report 2012

I also read independent reporting by a Syrian Hungarian doctor who could only get pictures of a family member wounden by a sniper and was prevented from leaving the area (supplies are zero.)

Is this what you support?

The followers of Marquis de Sade are winning, and tens of thousands wallow in the direst pain. They would sometimes give years of their life just so the agony would stop for a minute. Did you pro-Assad guys ever contemplate that?

If it was 1956 in Hungary again, would you vote for Soviet forces to sustain an illegal, dictatorial, and very violent government that every second man rose up in arms against? A regime that can only be in power because a foreign superpower pumps weapons and money into the regime and even keeps troops stationed there for decades? Just because you are (sometimes correctly) critical of Western issues? I have also been critical of Bus, the Afghan war, the Iraq war etc. But wait a minute, does THAT justify open butchery supported by an even crueler Eastern power? Are you serious?

Anyway, do two wrongs ever make a right?

reply to post by Kokatsi


Soviet union and Russia are different. By the way HRW and other NGOs are payroll of the US state dept. so it coiuld be propaganda and Hungary is part of NATO.This is what the Syrians have to say and this was from a Qatar foundation:

The majority of Syrians do not want Assad to resign and believe that the news about the protests in the country are exaggerated, according to a YouGov/Qatar Foundation poll on Syria commissioned for the Doha Debates that was published earlier this month. Atrocities have been carried out by both the Government and some of the armed protesters. In addition, Western, North African and Arab countries are funding, arming and training the armed opposition in Syria.
Some 55% of Syrian respondents do not believe President Assad should resign, whereas it was found that it was the vast majority of respondents across the region, 81%, who want him to do so.

Of the total respondents, 46% wanted President Assad to remain in power to prevent Syria becoming another Iraq, and half of the total (50%) think that the protests [in Syria] are part of a conspiracy by the US and the West.

Almost a third, 32%, of respondents from the Levant region believe that President Assad is the best president for Syria (the figure for Syria alone is not given).
www.muslimnews.co.uk...

Oops there goes your propaganda BS.

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by isaac7777

 

Check NDAA2012.It enables murder,torture and detention of americans without warrant. So like how am i supposed to trust american propaganda if your nation has such draconian laws.

Your supposed to just turn off our mind and close your eyes and accept it is part of the 'freedom' that the Globalist Menace that has U.S. politicians on a leash is bestowing on the world.

Seriously though, most people no longer buy into the gradeschool Orwellian slogans like fighting for 'freedom' LOL, they know these wars and occupations are really about fighting for resources, bases, pipeline routes, undermining any competitors of Israel, undermining competing currency/economic systems, and billion dollar give-aways to cronies. Smedley Butler explained it best years ago: War is a RACKET. But really fighting for 'freedom'???? LOL, c'mon now....

Originally posted by Jakes51
Russia again? If they are so concerned about Syria? Why don't they enforce a no-fly zone or send peace keepers? Better yet, why don't they vote on it in the UN? If anyone remembers it was both the Chinese and Russians who abstained from voting during the last UN Security Council measure regarding Libya. Vote for crying out loud!

They are permanent members of the Security Council, and their vote counts as much as any other nation. No, they will sit on their hands and do nothing. Always playing both sides against the middle. Typical Russian foreign policy. If they care so much about their business and strategic interests in Syria? Why are they filling the void with rhetoric instead of action? It is a very good possibility Assad is going to be ousted from power. It would be in Russia's best interests to endear themselves to the Syrian people at this crucial time. What is to stop whoever takes over from giving Russia the pink slip for their inaction? Nothing!

As long as their is consensus among members of the UN and neighbors in the region. I see no problem with international intervention, but only with a majority signing off on it. If Russia sits this one out when it is time to vote? Then they have themselves to blame if things sour regarding their relationship with Syria, and no one else. If they have proof of others aiding the Syrian rebellion? Prove it!

Further more... If China and Russia have been at this Anti US BS for a number of years now, TOGETHER, doesnt that make anyone a lil uneasy?? Anything that comes from the heads of those two countries against the US and all for these very acts of murder, is very expected. I expect, from all that I have seen over the last 15 years, not counting all before it, that these guys are and always have been up to something.

Anyone hear of the 45 year plan to infultrate and destroy america from within that began.. oh 40 something years ago? I wish I could remember the name of this book. It's from the 70s or earlier. It was supposedly written by a defector from Russia's KGB. He explained about the 45 year plan, including the "supposed" fall of russia long before it ever happened, as part of russia's plan to destroy america. Infultrate america's schools and universities with communism and instill this into the populace. Hell, it worked, real or not...

And.. Putin was former head of the KGB and now mysteriously sits at the head of Russia... Hmmm All sounds a lil too pre-acted to me. It's funny how a book from the 70s can so closely mimic what is going on today.

I dont trust russia or china for anything, much less world peace. They're out to destroy the US and I can honestly believe that some of the govt officials, politicians, are Russian plants.

I dont agree with everything the US does, but when it comes to peacekeeping... Sorry, there IS no other way than what we've done so far, minus a few choices made by obvious idiots in power who are either just idiots or, really are russian plants... or... They just want to die and take the world with it.

Id call russia's bluff, but honestly.. I do believe they are serious and they do believe that somehow, some way, they can win a nuclear war, or they drank too much florinated water and they just dont care anymore.

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

I understand where you are coming from. I don't want war and do not think we should be policing anyone.

HOWEVER I do believe in standing up for the underdog. Right now in the US we have a BIG problem with bullying. On the radio this morning I was glad to hear the DJ's commercial in regards to bullying and standing up, otherwise you are a part of the problem by not standing up to bullying. Kids are killing them selves left and right over it and it is so sad!

If the people of Syria are crying out for help then why is Russia not with the US standing up for the rights of the people?

Im in no way condoning the US going in other Countries and causing a war but I am all for helping people.

I don't think for a minute our leaders REALLY care about the people. They probably have another agenda.

Who knows....it is so confusing and I can hardly keep up with the news of each day. The times we are living in are interesting indeed!!!

you and i could not know the truths behind Syria. we have little to no way of knowing what is really occurring there, what the true battle is about nor the true players and their motives. i would venture a guess that nothing the US is doing, is based on humanitarian needs unfortunately.

reply to post by theRhenn


that communist plan was designed by Rockefeller. Rockefeller funded the creation OF USSR in 1917.Refer to Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution.

reply to post by mkgandhas

This is similar to the Libyan civil war.
So what do you say to the doctors? MSF is not a front for Western intelligence, it is a bottom-up organization.
I agree Soviets are not exactly like Russians. And I am by far not anti-Russian. However, it needs to be said that Russia plays big on the geopolitical scale and does not hesitate when its national interests (defined smaller than those of the Soviets) are at stake. Look at Georgia. True, there was CIA involvement and Israeli training, but the majority wanted a cleaner deal with Russia. They did not get it.
India is another big country but it plays far less geopolitics. Even though it has nukes also.
In Syria, you will have to account for the sects. Assad is Alawi (a non-Sunni minority), and in every Alawi family there is someone in the military or the secret police or security.

In Hungary in 1956, families were divided because some thought the Soviet alliance had to be kept, and some were ardent believers in Communism - sometimes due to the persecution endured by Nazis earlier. Many remaining Jews chose to be part of the Communist Elite for example partly for this reason, and partly because it still had utopian ideals.

Sir, I am not writing propaganda. Nor do I watch TV at all. And I am usually a firm critic of our own Western motives. What I write here is my opinion as best as I can gather, so if you also bring testimonies or facts contrary to my assesment, you may have an actual influence on my views on Syria.

All I am saying is that even if a fragment of the horrors is true by the testimonies I saw, Assad is a bloody dictator. If people want him well, why not test his mettle by free and supervised elections?
IMHO it is because the non-Alawis are in majority and because all across the Arab world, people are starting to feel "enough of tyranny."

It is justified that some fear an Iraq war type of scenario. Bush screwed that up big time and tarnished the image of the West - already full of money-motivated and geopolitically motivated adventures.

Perhaps that is - as you point out - one main reason for some not to want the Assad regime go. I can understand that. Possibly they want no Israeli intervention either. And in part, it could be Stockholm syndrome. They got used to the tyrant and want their familiar oppression. But look at what the Turks say, and those people that defected to Turkey!
What decides now is whether Assad's atrocities surpass those of the rebels (that was one major factor in the Chinese Civil War back in the forties), and who has more numbers. Qaddafi had his ardent supporters too.

Syria should have free elections - Assad could simply run for his office if he is so popular. It worked in romania. After Ceausescu was gone and deposed, people elected some milder Communist party cadre instead of a total unknown or return to a kingship.

Atrocities happen on both sides, in 1956, some State Security henchmen and known torturers were beaten and hung from lampposts. What differentiates an oppressing regime though is that they also regularly target innocent civilians and spread terror of the might of the State.

Peace,

Kokatsi

There is a fine line between "policing" the world for your own interests, and humanitarian intervention.

I support interventions, and that includes military, though multiple impartial nations should be involved to ensure actions taken are actually for humanitarian reasons, not "securing interests".

syria butchering it's own people is horrible and should be stopped. if they do not, then yes, something should be done.

HOWEVER: the U.S.'s main concern in the middle east is resources/power, not humanitarian aid. if we cared about helping nations become truly democratic, we would be in africa helping to sort out the mess.

intentions (and how effective those intentions actually are) determine whether an action is ethical, not the action itself.

killing for personal gain is MURDER, yet killing to protect the innocent is JUSTIFIED.

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by satoriku

 

have you noticed the utter hypocrisy of USA arming Al qaeda in Libya and Syria and supporting the bahraini and saudi govts in genocide against their citizens.

Yes. They sometimes hold two spits in the fire at the same time.
They are the biggest geopolitical players on Earth. Ron Paul wants to stop that. I am not sure Obama wants to. His foreign policy is still too much bending over backwards to please the Republican haws.

reply to post by Kokatsi


some?

check his facts instead of rhetoric.Though people don't like Assad,they absolutely dread the muslim brotherhood and its terroristic free syrian army sharia law maniacs.

Some 55% of Syrian respondents do not believe President Assad should resign, whereas it was found that it was the vast majority of respondents across the region, 81%, who want him to do so.
www.muslimnews.co.uk...

If you love sharia law so much migrate to saudi arabia and do honor killings there.I like secular Syria rather than sharia law syria.

Looks like the choice is between a bloody, South Amercian style secular dictatorship which claims to be a democracy and a POSSIBLE Muslim win.
Neither is any good from my POV. I would prefer a secular democracy which is NOT an inherited post from Dad who was also a dictator - this is kind of similar to the way kings operated before.

Sharia law only applies to Muslims as long as the state remains secular. However, if a new religious majority changes the constitution of the country and a few key laws... It is a standard question in Political Philosophy classes what happens when the majority of voters vote for a non-democratic format such as a kingdom or a theocracy. Usually the constitution of a modenr country prevents that from happening.

So you are saying Assad is the ONLY Syrian democrat? The SINGLE person that prevents Theocracy?

I am still asking why aren't there free elections with the Alawi military stepping down and not violating anyone any more?

You say the majority is so religious that they want to roll back the modern state altogether. However, democracy is based on the idea that at the least we listen to what the majority of the people want, in a formal way (voting by secret ballot etc.)

Devout Muslims can still keep their faith and submit to their religious court system if they want to.
I don't believe Assad shows a true picture of democracy. Saddam was also secular and Iraq was nominally a democracy under him. So was Guatemala in the 80's. In reality, both were violent military dictatorships.

I don't know which is worse. They are pretty much just two types of tyranny and wha tI would prefer is Syrians to be free at least as much as an Eastern European democracy like Poland.

We will see how Egypt ends up - they certainly did not aim at a Theocracy in Tahrir Square yet the majority voted for the MB which promised to keep the laws of a secular democracy - but I did not like the face of the guy delivering this message to the Western journalists. To me, he appeared to be lying. There is news of violence against Koptic Christians by fanatical Islamists.

Truth is no one knows where the Arab Spring leads. Paranoid and racist Westerners say it is only to Sharia Law because Muslims are somehow stuck in the Middle Ages and they are incapable of understanding democracy. Well, watching and reading last year's events in Egypt I had the feeling that was mainly done by partially educated and world-wise YOUNG people - the usual fare of revolutions in history. Not by religious conservatives as in Iran in 1979.

Who are we to predict that a democratic election in Syria "could only bring Muslim Theocracy"?

If Assad is so popular as your polls show (I suspect polls done by organizations abroad though on only a segment of the population), all the more reason for general elections.

You see, it is a no-no in any secular democracy worthy of the name to attack whole cities and segments of the population with armed forces.

If I were Assad Jr., I would negotiate for a laying down of arms, formally step down and announce general elections (with international supervisors) and run for an elected office with a LIMITED term and no inheritance of the post.

See, if he is so popular he could win the elections - as the saver of Syria from a Saudi-type of rule - just use TV ads instead of snipers and torture.

Originally posted by isaac7777

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Another warning... and a BIG ONE to the west to stop interfering in Syria...

Russia accuses West of stoking Syria conflict by arming rebels

Russia said on Friday that the West was stoking the conflict in Syria by sending weapons to the opponents of President Bashar Assad.

Probably. Iran is helping Assad.

"The UN council is not a tool for intervention in internal affairs and is not the agency to decide which government is to be next in one country or another," Ryabkov said. "If our foreign partners don't understand that, we will have to use drastic measures to return them to real grounds."

I wonder what that would be... giving high tech weapons to Syria/Iran? Arming Hezbollah?

Who knows. Yes Assad is killing his own people. But guess what, it's Syria's people business. We have no right to intervene, even if we all want the killing to stop. Would you want Russia and China bombing the US if a revolt began? I don't think so.

So you are condoning the murder* of innocents in Syria? Sounds like it. Is Russia condoning it? Most definitely. Nothing wrong with sending weapons to his opponents, good for them that they now have a fighting chance against Assad. And its right for Iran to send 15,000 troops to Syria? How about we* send 15,000 of our elite troops to back the rebels? Also its not only Syrias business...its humanitys* business. I would give my life equally for any human on this planet, whether he is American, Iranian, Ethiopian, Chinese, whatever, and im sure many others would as well. And yes, if the US government was murdering its own citizens, and we led a revolt, although we wouldnt need the help of the Chinese or the Russians, id love it. Its time for change in the world.

edit on 10-2-2012 by isaac7777 because: (no reason given)

Why don't you worry about the USA supporting the brutal regimes in Yemen, Bahrain, or Saudi Arabia?

It seems silly to worry about Syria and not those places.

China sides with Russia...

China: U.S., Europe have hegemonistic goals in Syria

The United States and Europe are "harboring hegemonistic ambitions" in Syria, China's state news agency said Saturday, a day after Beijing was condemned at an international conference held to find a way to halt the Syrian regime's nearly year-old suppression of an anti-government uprising.

China sees it for what it really is...

reply to post by Vitchilo


I think Russia just needs to join NATO and be given a seat at the adult table already. If Russia was allowed into NATO in the 90's we wouldn't be having these pissing contest disputes with Russia. Because that is all they are.

Economically, Russia would benefit from a bombed out Iran(even factoring in the lost income from the money Iran owes Russia). Russia's only stake in the game is to flip the middle finger at the West. That is what this is all about.

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

I think Russia just needs to join NATO and be given a seat at the adult table already. If Russia was allowed into NATO in the 90's we wouldn't be having these pissing contest disputes with Russia. Because that is all they are.

Economically, Russia would benefit from a bombed out Iran(even factoring in the lost income from the money Iran owes Russia). Russia's only stake in the game is to flip the middle finger at the West. That is what this is all about.

I'd actually quite like to see that. Theres really no reason that NATO/RUSSIA need to be in opposition these days. The current bad blood and Russian obstinacy is blowback from the triumphalism and bungled diplomacy in the post USSR failed state period.

The eventual plan should be Russia to be a part of the EU although thats probably decades away.

Let's hope that Russia can protect Syria and Assad from the propaganda and the CIA Proxy Army that has been sent into Syria