NEWS: Saudis to Syria: Withdraw From Lebanon

International pressure on the Syrian government escalated another notch today when the Saudi government called for the removal of its troops in Lebanon. Saudi officials speaking to Syrian President Bashar Assad indicated that strains on their relationship could develop if he failed to withdrawal. This latest pressure comes after the car bomb assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister and questionable ties to a Tel Aviv suicide bombing. Syria has maintained troops in Lebanon since 1975.



False flag or not, Syria has overplayed its hand and now must pay the price for its miscalculations. Its role in Lebanon is now under scrutiny even from within the Arab world, Assad has nothing left but to move out. If he refuses, it will get interesting. I doubt that anybody is going to go in and throw him out. This caps yet another blunder for Syria. It almost regained control of the Golan, but Syria refused to complete the deal with then Prime Minister Barak and I doubt now if Israel will ever give it up.


[edit on 3-3-2005 by Banshee]

[edit on 5-3-2005 by John bull 1]

Yet another country calling for Syria to pull out of Lebanon. Russia echoed the same sentiment the other day..RUSSIA! And then there's France, traditionally the opposing force in Mid East politics, also calling for Syria to withdraw. What the hell is going on?

There is definitely something brewing, and it involves a host of countries that are usually antagonistic towards each other. I mean, Saudi Arabia, France, Russia, America, Israel, (others I'm forgetting) all calling for the same thing...

I can understand the house of Saud and their logic. I can certainly understand Israel and America. Russia and France stump me.

I can't for the life of me figure out why they are calling for the withdrawal. Is it just good PR?

Or maybe, just maybe, all the bad things said about the Syrian occupation are true. I doubt it, the truth is almost always more complicated than good/bad, still I can't help but wonder.

Could we be witnessing the final stages of a global policy shift for the countries involved?

On second thought I can sort of understand the French position. They could be seeking to regain credibility in the European community since their connections in the Mid East pretty much died with the Baathist regime. I don't know..it's a strange thing we're witnessing.

I was under the impression that Syria provided much needed security in a country torn by civil war, religious violence, and extremism. France provides much the same role in the Ivory Coast, will they be pulling out soon to put their money where their mouth is? It will be interesting to see if Lebanon implodes after Syria leaves, I suspect it will.

I feel the involvement of entities such as France and Russia is less about getting Syria out of that region, and more about the bigger picture.

Right now, they are working to get the "hot potato" out of Syria's hands. They are working to help limit the United State's ability to act with aggression.

Just my opinion on the situation.

X

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I can understand the house of Saud and their logic. I can certainly understand Israel and America. Russia and France stump me.

France was heavily involved in Lebanon and Syria years ago.
They were under French mandate and I think they still have strong relations with those countries.

Here's a good background which covers the Syrian troops in Lebanon:
www.dm.net.lb...

Originally posted by Xatnys
Right now, they are working to get the "hot potato" out of Syria's hands. They are working to help limit the United State's ability to act with aggression.

Cute, but hardly accurate, France and Russia are doing what they do best: looking out for France and Russia. The writing on the wall is pretty clear, and nobody wants to go down with a sinking ship. The U.S. does not need to go into Syria at this point its done a nice job of self destructiong on its own.

Originally posted by Xatnys
I feel the involvement of entities such as France and Russia is less about getting Syria out of that region, and more about the bigger picture.

Right now, they are working to get the "hot potato" out of Syria's hands. They are working to help limit the United State's ability to act with aggression.

Just my opinion on the situation.

X

This is my sense too. No one in the world wants nuclear war - we'll all pay. So it's about removing motive.


.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Xatnys
Right now, they are working to get the "hot potato" out of Syria's hands. They are working to help limit the United State's ability to act with aggression.

Cute, but hardly accurate, France and Russia are doing what they do best: looking out for France and Russia. The writing on the wall is pretty clear, and nobody wants to go down with a sinking ship. The U.S. does not need to go into Syria at this point its done a nice job of self destructiong on its own.

If you truly believe that there is not intention from the US or Israel to attack Syria in the near future, then you are in for a great surprise.

And yeah, you don't have to have ever read Ringer's "Looking out for Number 1" in order to know that by trying to avert a war they are in fact helping themselves, but like I said; it's the bigger picture down the road that we're really looking at currently. Thanks for the reply, but my "cute" opinion will stand fast for now, for me at least .

Soficrow:

Exactly the wavelength I'm focusing on personally.

Congrats on the WATS btw, you've had several votes from me, and you deserve it, imho.

X

Originally posted by Xatnys
If you truly believe that there is not intention from the US or Israel to attack Syria in the near future, then you are in for a great surprise.

Hmmm if it was Bush's intention to wage war everywhere, North Korea would be under attack right now. No, If Syria can be marginalized, there is no need for that.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Xatnys
If you truly believe that there is not intention from the US or Israel to attack Syria in the near future, then you are in for a great surprise.

Hmmm if it was Bush's intention to wage war everywhere, North Korea would be under attack right now. No, If Syria can be marginalized, there is no need for that.

You say that, but the NK situation was just as apparent before we were invading Iraq, and it was glanced over at that point. What makes you believe that we are more likely now to wish to attack NK, when we have already set up a plan for middle-eastern dominance, including a prime staging area and mock democracy/regime in Iraq/Afganistan respectively?

Nope, NK is a useful enemy as well, but that's not where the eye of Israel/U.S. is looking at the moment. They are focused on the dominance of the current theater.

You should do some reading on what the Project for a New American Century (US Neocon Think Tank) and various Israeli/"Zionist" think tanks have written in regards to Middle Eastern dominance and it's relation to not only a stronger American world presence, but also how it benifits Israel in its plans for regional peace/ assimilation.

I'll go grab some quotes or links for you on that and be back in a bit, but you could google most of it yourself, just so you know.

X

Wait a minute. Let me see if I have this right.

Six million Iraqis goto the polls and engage in what was for many, the first vote of their lives.

Hosni Mubarak talks about two-party elections in the most important Arab country, Egypt.

The Saudis start to have little mini-elections in their country.

Lebanese Sunnis, Shi'ites, Druze, and Christians, maybe taking a page out of the Orange revolution in Ukrania, take to the streets to get rid of the Syrian ocupiers and their puppet regime. The puppet government falls, and Assad says he's gettting out.

With Yassir Arafat dead, Mahmoud Abbas and Ariel Sharon actually seem to be holding on to a peace, despite the attempts of Syria's "guests", Islamic Jihad, to hijack the process.

And Russia and France are falling over themselves to get on board the bandwagon.

I don't think -- and I mentioned this back then -- that Bush even thought that there were 'weapons of mass destruction' or that the Baath fascists were in league with al-Qaeda.

I think Bush, despite his protestations to the contrary, was planning to impose some sort of representative governmental system on Iraq, which would be a tremendous counterbalance to Syriua and iran, who now seem to have their political backs to the wall.

Could it be that George W. Bush, the president everyone loves to hate, is actually ... succeeding?

The horror! The horror!

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Could it be that George W. Bush, the president everyone loves to hate, is actually ... succeeding?The horror! The horror!

Man would that piss off the Bush sucks crowd to no end. Its premature to say for sure, and some breaks went Bush's way like Arafat moving on etc.

But if it all works out it will be great for alot of people not just the U.S.

This is outstanding if more Arab nations team up and pulls the strings perhaps something will happen, one thing is to have the "infidels" telling what to do but when other Arab nation gets involve then its giving the right signal.

This are good news indeed.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by marg6043]

I was a bit perplexed by the strong comments comming from Saudi which usually takes a more reserved tone when commenting about Arab states, but this (at least to me) explains things in greated detail

Saudi Arabia is said to be angry with Damascus over the Feb. 14 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who also held Saudi citizenship and was close to the Saudi royal family.


The Lebanese opposition has blamed Syria and its allied government in Beirut for the killing, which sparked dramatic street protests that forced the resignation of the pro-Syrian government. Damascus and the Lebanese government deny any role in the assassination.
Saudi Motives?

FredT I am very happy with the turn around in Syria and Lebanon but between you and me, I feel that it was staged and in the benefit of the Lebanese people.

The prof comes from the Saudis taking now sides with Lebanon, yes it was a cover up operation in my opinion.

But for a good cause I hope.

Marg,

Do you think it was a Saudi op? The link above your post suggests that the former PM was a Saudi citizen and close to the Royal family. That alone makes thier stance understandable. I had thought about this being an outside false flag op, but never suspected Saudi involvement???

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I can understand the house of Saud and their logic. I can certainly understand Israel and America. Russia and France stump me.

Lebanon, as well as Syria, used to be French colonies. However, the French have ingratiated themselves into lebanese society much more successfully than in Syria. Lebanon is a tri-lingual country, with many people who speak much better french than english. France has for a long time felt a close unity with the lebanese, and to top it all off, Hariri was a close personal friend of Chirac. I would say russia are trying to play down their arms dealings with Syria and Hezbollah and try to appear less to blame to the international community, and so are joining the calls in an attempt to curry some lost favour.

...
You'll be blushing at the end of this one.

A great example of an Israeli/"Zionist" think tank would have to be the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. They produce a number of documents relating to strategy for Israeli/Zionist regional dominance, one of which would be a little diddy called A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing The Realm .

This document urges a new strategy to regional dominance, one "based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism".

It called for the ceasing of using negations for long term peace, and to rather make use of a more militaristic strategy using "Israel and it's main allies". However you want to look at that, the U.S. isn't just one of Israel's main allies, it IS Israel's main ally.

What does that have to do with the United States Directly though? Not much, I guess, unless of course you take into account that our occupation and domination of this particular region serves the very goals stated above. By bringing "freedom", "democracy" and "regime change" to the region, we are basically installing a ruling class in this area which can be made to view Israel as a much more dominant entity, even more so with "big daddy" USA standing right behind the "little nation that could".

I know, I know, you’re still not convinced though. Why would you be? It's not like this same strategy, which I have outlined above, has been in planning for a long while now, right?

Wrong. See, there's a little organization over here in the U.S. called the Project for A New American Century, which from now on I will call PNAC. Sounds benign, right? Let's see who makes up the "high cabal" of this organization, shall we? Let's:

Donald Rumsfeld, hmm where have I seen this guy...jeeze, it's slipped my mind I guess. Yeah, well, whoever this guy is, he's a founding member of PNAC.

Paul Wolfowitz, another PNAC founder, just happens to be the Dep. Def. Secretary while all this policy is beginning to come into play. Not only that, but he's a Neocon's Neocon, and proud and staunch supporter of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (look them up, sometime).

Dick Cheyney, another founder of PNAC; I thought I knew who this guy was. Not really sure anymore, he's rather quiet lately, but then again; the best puppeteers and ventriloquists always are. Not only is he a proud and staunch supporter of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, he's on the board of advisors! Dedication at its finest, no doubt. Worth mentioning that whatever role he's playing now, he was also the Defense Secretary during the original Bush's legacy, one that had a very similar focus for this region, strange, eh? Hey, what company was dealing with the oil in Iraq part one? Which is the same one over there now too eh? Halliburton? Dick Cheyney's Halliburton? Nah, I must mean two other Haliburtons, right? Right??

Lewis Libby, another PNAC founding member. You may not be familiar with this jewel of neoconism, but I assure you he's important. He's an old ghost that has been in the halls of the Whitehouse for a long time in different roles. He's chief of staff to that stranger Cheyney, and was also on Bush Sr.'s Defense Department. A rich guy with ties to many of the very companies that are "rebuilding" Iraq, and lining up for a chance at Iran and Syria. That includes the RAND corp. and Northrop Grumman, both of which revel in massive contracts by the government.

The list goes on and on, like a snapshot from the world's worst nightmare. A condensed list is:

Richard Perle

John Negroponte

Elliott Abrams

Zalmay Khalizad

Jeb Bush

John Bolton

James Woolsey

Michael Ledeen

Doug J. Feith

Michael Joyce

Meyrav Wurmser

Josua Muravchik

David Frum

William Kristol

And on and on it goes. If you'd like a mini bio of greed, corruption, and Zionism on any of the above, all ya need to do is ask.


Anyways let's see what they have to say about the US's dominance in the region, starting with Iraq? Yes?(quotes are in bold below)

A "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principals and interests (read: Israel)"

"This American grand strategy must drive as far into the future as possible, in which the US must fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars. "



Allies such as the UK are the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership.

Peacekeeping missions (read: regime change) demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations.

Even should Saddam pass from the scene, bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait must remain permanently, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops as Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests (read Israel) as Iraq has."

Libya, Syria and Iran are dangerous regimes and their existence justifies, the creation of a "world-wide command and control system.

The US should consider the use of bio weapons and that new methods of attack- electronic, "non lethal", bio will be more widely available... combat likely take place in new arenas, in cyberspace, and perhaps in the world of microbes...advanced forms of bio warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform bio warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.





But the critics are speaking, and here's what they have to say of this beautifully deranged, Zionist masterpiece:
"This is a blueprint for US world domination - a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labor Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing. -- Tam Dalyell Labour Member of parliament.

I could go on, but I think that the above makes a good case. If you don't outright close your mind to what you've just read, please go look up what PNAC is up to, or feel free to U2U me and I'll help you.

It's all about the bigger picture, hope I illustrated that to those who will view the info at hand.

X

Originally posted by FredT
Marg,

Do you think it was a Saudi op? The link above your post suggests that the former PM was a Saudi citizen and close to the Royal family. That alone makes their stance understandable. I had thought about this being an outside false flag op, but never suspected Saudi involvement???

FredT I got the feeling that US may had to do more with the op than the Saudis, due to the closes ties between the PM and the Royal family.

And to be honest I think it was brilliant.

Egypt is also backing up the withdraw.

But in the world of politics one sacrifice is always seen as acceptable for the good of a cause.

And the cause is to create unrest in the middle east so the people get a chance to take matters in their hands and change the rules (or their government).

The whole incident the timing is just to good and to convenient to let go, I just have the strong feeling that it was not Syria the one that did the deed.

Also you have to notice that Iran is getting very scare of an imminent attack, why? because they are alone now Syria has tis own problems in his own soil to be of any help to Iran in case US decide to target Iran.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by marg6043]

Could it be that George W. Bush, the president everyone loves to hate, is actually ... succeeding?

The horror! The horror!

Still a bit early to pop the champagne just yet...

Now, I despise Bush just as much as most here, but I do wish him (and all of America), luck with this one...

Many others would have acheived this point two years ago, but that's neither here nor there. Now lets just hope he doesn't muck it up by going on another crusade, shall we?

*crosses fingers and toes*.....

Originally posted by marg6043
Also you have to notice that Iran is getting very scare of an imminent attack why because they are alone now Syria has tis own problems in his own soil to be of any help to Iran in case US decide to target Iran.

I don't know. Iran is pretty confident that it can raise an insuregency that will make the Iraqi on look pale in comparison. Do not forget that the Sistani backed ticket hold power and he has approval from Iran. If the U.S. attacked and the Shiite community went insurgent on the US. it could be catastrophic.

I don't think that Iran looked to Syria in any real sence for Physical security. Isreal could in all likelyhood handle the Syrians esp since they retain controll of the Golan. And going to war with the US would give them all the reason they needed to go after Syria.

Iran on the otherhand is not Iraq for a variety of reasons:

The population is not happy with the religous leadership but not ready for a rebellion. They no doubt would easily rise up to oppose the inital attack and then go into insurgent mode. You think the SUnni triangle is bad lets try to pacify a city the size of Tehran.


I think Iran is not a scared of a US invasion as it seems. They could fight an insurgency for decades there and bleed the US dry untill it gives up.