Assad historical speech (06/01/2013) The TRUTH speaks

reply to post by thoughtfuldeliquent


Your right, there are no good guys when it comes to any leader or system. What makes it worse is that our leaders are now throwing their support behind known terrorist organisations after scaring the crap out of Western society for the last 12 years. They all need to be toppled. All the death is coming from the top and it doesn't matter which country the finger is pointed at.

I'm not sure who this speech was intended for. Obviously Mr Assad is speaking to a congress of government insiders, but was this speech also intended for the world at large? If so, I don't think it does an effective job for the Assad government. I would go further and say that the speech is very disappointing because it demonstrates a poor grasp of politics, if one means by politics, the art of persuading people in matters of general public policy.

Mr. Assad seems to be very sincere in his wishes to resolve the crisis in Syria in a way that will benefit the country as a whole, but the approach outlined in this speech (I admit I'm posting only having heard half of the speech.) makes too many naive assumptions about what will accomplish that.

He gives me the impression of yet another Middle Eastern leader who doesn't seem to grasp exactly what sort of agression he is facing. He seems to think that Western powers are acting in support of Syrian political opposition. He thinks that if he addresses political grievances he will be able to bring the assault on the Syrian state to an end and work for national reconciliation.

This is a naive view. Outsiders are not acting for the Syrian opposition. It is the other way around. The Syrian opposition is acting for the outsiders.

They may not know it. Just as in Libya or in Egypt, they didn't know it. But that is what is going on.

Mr. Assad is like the little Dutch boy who stuck his finger in the dyke to hold back the sea, except that what is going on in Syria, as in Iraq, as in Libya, as in Egypt, is not a children's story, and will not end in such a happy way.

People in North America and Europe have been alerting the world to the danger it faces for many years now, since shortly after 9/11. Obviously, nobody is listening.

This was on television in the United States in 2007. The speaker is a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the armed forces of the United States, General Wesley Clark. I guess nobody in the Middle East has ever heard of him.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I'm not sure who this speech was intended for. Obviously Mr Assad is speaking to a congress of government insiders, but was this speech also intended for the world at large? If so, I don't think it does an effective job for the Assad government. I would go further and say that the speech is very disappointing because it demonstrates a poor grasp of politics, if one means by politics, the art of persuading people in matters of general public policy.

Mr. Assad seems to be very sincere in his wishes to resolve the crisis in Syria in a way that will benefit the country as a whole, but the approach outlined in this speech (I admit I'm posting only having heard half of the speech.) makes too many naive assumptions about what will accomplish that.

He gives me the impression of yet another Middle Eastern leader who doesn't seem to grasp exactly what sort of agression he is facing. He seems to think that Western powers are acting in support of Syrian political opposition. He thinks that if he addresses political grievances he will be able to bring the assault on the Syrian state to an end and work for national reconciliation.

This is a naive view. Outsiders are not acting for the Syrian opposition. It is the other way around. The Syrian opposition is acting for the outsiders.

They may not know it. Just as in Libya or in Egypt, they didn't know it. But that is what is going on.

Mr. Assad is like the little Dutch boy who stuck his finger in the dyke to hold back the sea, except that what is going on in Syria, as in Iraq, as in Libya, as in Egypt, is not a children's story, and will not end in such a happy way.

People in North America and Europe have been alerting the world to the danger it faces for many years now, since shortly after 9/11. Obviously, nobody is listening.

Since I have heard the whole speech I can say that I believe you are wrong. He actually said that he understands that Syrian opposition is not authentic and that the west is driving Syrian opposition. He concluded that Syrian government will refuse to enter a dialog with FSA, since they 'work' for the "west" and are driven by the "west". Instead, he says, Syrian government will focus on resolving the conflict with the west.
He is right. - It is more reasonable to talk to the driver (the west), rather than talk to a tank (FSA).
So, he is not naive and he knows that opposition is not genuine, or authentic, he knows that west created this opposition and thats why he says he will rather approach west since the west is driving the opposition.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
This was on television in the United States in 2007. The speaker is a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the armed forces of the United States, General Wesley Clark. I guess nobody in the Middle East has ever heard of him.

Yea, I saw that show ages ago on "Democracy Now" (Wich is by the way financed by Rockefeller foundation). Obviously the plan he revealed to attack Iran until 2008 luckily did not came true. However it is weird how one general can reveal such military secrets in the public. Maybe there was an agenda behind his appearence on television revealing this 'plan'.

reply to post by Fichorka

I did watch a selection of excerpts from his speech on the website of the French newspaper Le Monde which gave an overview of the important points he made and I grant you that he has a better grasp of the situation than I originally thought he had, but the main thrust of my criticism holds, I think.

Assad is naive if he thinks he can negotiate with the West (NATO and the United States). They want him gone and will work to achieve that and when they have achieved that, they will move on to the next target. I'm guessing that will be Hamas in southern Lebanon.

I don't think anyone in the Middle East, with the exception of the Israelis and the Arab allies of the United States, really grasps what is going on.

I still want the gates of hell to really open and put the oppressors in their places, permanently.

I still want the gates of hell to really open and put the oppressors in their places, permanently.

I still want the gates of hell to really open and put the oppressors in their places, permanently.

reply to post by Fichorka

I think that what happened with General Clark talking about this stuff on TV was not so much an agenda as incredulity.

I don't think he could really believe that the United States was about to embark on a path of foreign military agression in such a cold blooded manner. Maybe General Clark is unlike Nazi generals for example, who would never have spoken of such things, although to be fair to some German staff officers, they did talk about Hitler's plans and tried to alert colleagues in Holland and other places.

Originally posted by MrMaybeNot
If he gave up after 60000 deads, and gave up to these extremist groups funded by the west, wouldn't you think these people died in vain? Stop letting your emotions in the way of what's really happening.

Assad should have given up before 60,000 people were killed, but what's done is done. The Assad regime is in a bad place, because their only way to retain power is to brutally repress. They did it before in 1982 which resulted in 40,000 murdered in Hama. Prove me I am wrong.

If you have evidence that the West is funding extremist groups, then please post. Note "real" evidence, so not RT or PressTV or some YouTube worldview. Oh, the UK giving a million quid in satalite phones to the FSA is not funding extremism

People seem unable to believe that some people can rise up against brutality and repression without having their hands held by "the West". Some people demean others through their blinkered worldview by suggesting that they are incapable of acting of their own volition.

Regards

Originally posted by paraphi
People seem unable to believe that some people can rise up against brutality and repression without having their hands held by "the West".

I don't agree with that. People have been doing that for generations in Central America and in the Middle and Far East. Generally speaking they are crushed by the local power in control. When they are not crushed by the local power in control it is because they are funded and armed from outside.

Some people demean others through their blinkered worldview by suggesting that they are incapable of acting of their own volition.

And some people are blinded by their own pride so they cannot see why they have been able to win at roulette when so many others before them have lost.

Originally posted by paraphi
Assad should have given up before 60,000 people were killed, but what's done is done. The Assad regime is in a bad place, because their only way to retain power is to brutally repress. They did it before in 1982 which resulted in 40,000 murdered in Hama. Prove me I am wrong.

What has 1982 got to do with Bashar Al Assad? He only came into power in 2000 when his father died..Its like blaming Obama for invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anyway, The crackdown on Hama started with a rumour that Muslim Brotherhood insurgents were hiding amongst the population in the city. I understand that what happened after is wrong, but again it isn't a case of the Syrian government blatantly attacking their civilians. For all we know, the Brotherhood insurgents could of been killing some of those 40,000 also the same as the Islamic extremists are contributin to the 60,000 which are supposedly dead in Syria now.

If you have evidence that the West is funding extremist groups, then please post. Note "real" evidence, so not RT or PressTV or some YouTube worldview. Oh, the UK giving a million quid in satalite phones to the FSA is not funding extremism

So what are we supposed to give you? BBC? CNN? Fox News? Really, anything else that can be provided would be labelled unreliable.. As for the extremists groups

In 1979 the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA was launched in Afghanistan:

“With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, who wanted to turn the Afghan Jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually, more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.” (Ahmed Rashid, “The Taliban: Exporting Extremism”, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999)

What do we have fighting in Syria? The very same crew minus Osama Bin Laden..

People seem unable to believe that some people can rise up against brutality and repression without having their hands held by "the West". Some people demean others through their blinkered worldview by suggesting that they are incapable of acting of their own volition.

Less than 1% of the Syrian population participated in the initial protests. Some people cannot see that if the same was to happen in their country, their government would likely crackdown on them also and call them terrorists.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
What has 1982 got to do with Bashar Al Assad? He only came into power in 2000 when his father died..Its like blaming Obama for invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the context of the argument made that the Syrian uprising is somehow impossible without Western support, it exposes the lie that the Syrian people are incapable of kicking back against a brutal dictator. They tried it once in 1982 against Assad’s dad and paid a price to the tune of 40,000 slain at Hama. They are trying it again as we speak. Assad knows from his father’s experience that you can keep hold of power if you kill off the opposition and the body-count has now exceeded 60,000.

reply to post by ipsedixit

We'll go around in circles with this - what with my pride and your blinkered worldview.

My position is that the Syrian's are rising up against a brutal dictatorship and in so doing expressing that they can do so without being nursed and guided by the West. There is no evidence that the West are funding extremists or complicit in the detail of this civil war.

In fact, dictatorships and authoritarian regimes have a habit of falling and there far less now (today) than there used to be a few decades ago. There are many reasons for this, not least the withdrawal of support from the Cold War sponsors. Totalitarian regimes have been falling all over and it has just caught up with the Middle East.

Regards

Originally posted by paraphi
In the context of the argument made that the Syrian uprising is somehow impossible without Western support, it exposes the lie that the Syrian people are incapable of kicking back against a brutal dictator. They tried it once in 1982 against Assad’s dad and paid a price to the tune of 40,000 slain at Hama.

Don't you read? In 1982 insurgents invaded the city of Hama. I understand that 40,000 people dead is 40,000 too many, but what are Muslim brotherhood insurgets doing in Syria in the first place?

They are trying it again as we speak. Assad knows from his father’s experience that you can keep hold of power if you kill off the opposition and the body-count has now exceeded 60,000.

You need to do some research and see who are operating in Syria.. From a 10,000 people protest we have gone to an opposition with foreign fighters all over the place. This is not a case of Syrians rising against Assad. Maybe it was at the beginning but now we have known terrorists operating and killing innocents in Syria.

We'll go around in circles with this - what with my pride and your blinkered worldview.

What is a blinkered world view? Because I don't chew on the crap my media outlets want me to hear?

My position is that the Syrian's are rising up against a brutal dictatorship and in so doing expressing that they can do so without being nursed and guided by the West. There is no evidence that the West are funding extremists or complicit in the detail of this civil war.

There is plenty of evidence that the West and other gulf states are not just sending money and weapons but convicted criminals into Syria. As for the Syrians rising against Assad, keep dreaming... Again less than 1% of the Syrian population protested at the beginning. They do not represent the other 23 Million Syrians.

In fact, dictatorships and authoritarian regimes have a habit of falling and there far less now (today) than there used to be a few decades ago. There are many reasons for this, not least the withdrawal of support from the Cold War sponsors. Totalitarian regimes have been falling all over and it has just caught up with the Middle East.

With that philosophy we should be in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and every other gulf state.. Why you ask? Because they have all done the exact same thing as Assad along with the crimes against humanity on their own civilians through extreme laws and sweeping powers for the monarchies.

reply to post by DarknStormy
Sounds like I touched a nerve. Try to remain civil – manners maketh man, and all that. Yes, I can read and also have a bit of knowledge about the situation in hand, so thanks for asking.

I think that you should do some research about how uprisings tend to happen. The demonstrations may start with a few thousand, but that does not imply the opposition are just that number. That’s a silly notion and you know it. Syria has been on the brink for years with a majority Sunni population lauded over by a minority and privileged Alawite population.

On the Hama massacre. Hama had a history of opposition and was not “invaded” as you put it. In fact Hama was the centre of many protests. If the population of Hama were sympathetic to the Syrian Ba'ath Party and the Assad regime, then I suspect the retaliation against armed rebels would have been less ruthless.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


Firstly, you haven't touched a nerve... If you were to look at all the evidence that can be provided you would see what I was talking about. Then again, you probably wouldn't. I have seen reports that state over 90% of the opposition in Syria are foreigners including fighters who were in Libya. If that is correct then what uprising were you talking about? Syria isn't a civil war... The Syrian people are not fighting Assad. Syria has been invaded by the very people your government made you fear over the last decade. Now they are using them to put fear into other peoples lives.

Originally posted by paraphi
My position is that the Syrian's are rising up against a brutal dictatorship and in so doing expressing that they can do so without being nursed and guided by the West.

Perhaps in addition to pride you also have blinkers. The Syrian uprising is being assisted by foreigners from the Arab world and also from Turkey. Both of these elements have strong ties to America and America is anything but disinterested in the fate of the Assad regime.

There is no evidence that the West are funding extremists or complicit in the detail of this civil war.

What evidence would satisfy you? No Western power pulling strings in Syria is going to say, "Hey, I'm behind all of this." And no Syrian rebel leader is going to say, "Hey, I have a fat bank account in Switzerland now!"

In fact, dictatorships and authoritarian regimes have a habit of falling and there far less now (today) than there used to be a few decades ago.

That's true but they have a habit of falling to the next dictator, or to the purveyor of sham democracy, used as a cover by international corporations to loot the country in question.

reply to post by paraphi


Stop playing your stupid little games paraphi! We have already agreed that We have no say whether Assad stays in power or not. Who the f*** are you to decide the fate of Syria and it's people? Just Shut the F*** UP because you sound like a paid shill.

reply to post by paraphi


I'll break it down for you bit by bit just to show you I'm not pulling your leg. Who do I start with? Saudi Arabia?

13/11/2012"The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) declares its recognition of the Syrian national coalition... as the legitimate representative of the brotherly Syrian people," Abdulatif al-Zayani, the GCC's secretary general, said in a statement.

The GCC comprises Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait.

Now that seems like a worldly thing to do for the Syrian people, band together and throw your support behind the newly recognised coalition. But what I don't understand is if the Saudis are so concerned about the Syrian people, why would they be doing this below?

The documents include the orders which have been issued to grant amnesty to criminals from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Somalia, Kuwait, Palestine, Afghanistan and Sudan - who had been waiting in the death row in Saudi jails - in return for joining the terrorist war on the Syrian government.

But not only are they sending criminals who were on Death row which btw must of been serious crimes, they have people like the one below calling for the rape of women in Syria including teenagers down to the age of 14 years old.

A Saudi Arabian imam, who is a very influential cleric in jihadist circles, has issued a fatwa (religious edict) that essentially allows all jihadists fighting in Syria to rape women.

Muhammed al-Arifi, a Wahhabi religious cleric, officially calls this act an "intercourse marriage” that can last only a few hours – "in order to give each fighter a turn” -- and restricts the men to Syrian females at least 14 years old, widowed or divorced.

Apparently the Cleric has redacted the claims but from watching this video and seeing how it has affected one 14 year olds life after being gang raped in Syria, it wouldn't surprise me if damage control is coming into play.



So lets put it all together. First this nation who get their thrills out of committing crimes against humanity on their own people recognise the Syrian opposition coalition. Days later, they are releasing prisoners who are on death row as long as they go to Syria and fight against Assad..

Now do you call that the Syrian people rising up against their horrific leader? What part of the above do you think is going to benefit the Syrian people?

And then theres this

Saudi Arabia said on Monday that two men have been killed after protests in a Shia Muslim area in the eastern part of the world's top oil exporter, following the arrest of a prominent Shia cleric.

BahrainThe Saudi forceswere deployed to Bahrain in mid-March 2011, to help the Manama regime launch brutal crackdowns on peaceful protests. Saudi forces have also reportedly used Bahraini police uniforms when cracking down on protesters.

Wheres our support for the Saudi people plus the Bahrain people who copped worse than what Assad done to the protesters in his country? Shouldn't we be overthrowing all of these regimes?