The Middle East Crisis

[OZGOD]

Well looks like the Seppos are going to fire off a few Tomahawks at Assad's boys.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Suddenly you have very religious muslims supporting a US invasion. The world is a mad place sometimes.

 

[Somali Pirate]

At this point in time the syrians couldnt care less if iblees himself attacks assad. They will welcome anyone and anything that frees them from the butcher of damascus

 

[James]

Not sure if it would be a ground invasion.

Reports indicate sustained air and naval strikes against military targets by the US, UK and France.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

At this point in time the syrians couldnt care less if iblees himself attacks assad. They will welcome anyone and anything that frees them from the butcher of damascus

Aye, the Hazaras probably felt that about the Talibs and the Kurds about Saddam.

 

[OZGOD]

Not sure if it would be a ground invasion.

Reports indicate sustained air and naval strikes against military targets by the US, UK and France.

I'm not sure what the political climate in the UK for a ground invasion is at the moment James, but I can tell you there's not going to be a snowball's chance in hell that Obama or the US Congress will put American boots on the ground in another foreign war. Not even John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the other Repub hawks would be willing to vote for that so soon after Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'm not even sure they would conduct surgical strikes with manned US aircraft, unless they want to test their F-22 Raptors or F35s in a live fire situation. They could possibly use the B1s or B2s, but more likely it will be standoff weapons like the Tomahawks launched from well outside Syrian airspace and well out of reach of Syrian air defences. Or Predator drones.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

You can't even attempt a regime change without boots on the ground.

 

[speed]

One thing I have learnt in my life is whichever side the USA is supporting are most definitely the terrorist.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

One thing I have learnt in my life is whichever side the USA is supporting are most definitely the terrorist.

Its not as simple as that but I find it strange how some people call for US support in this case ( perhaps because its Sunnis dying?) and call them invaders,great satan etc in other cases.

Is there a certain cut off point in terms of number of people dying where it becomes ok to go to the great satan for help?

 

[OZGOD]

You can't even attempt a regime change without boots on the ground.

True...but they don't want American boots and American body bags coming back home. It will be Syrians who will be doing the heavy lifting on the ground if any intervention is to take place. It's political suicide for any US politician to send any US troops to any warzone so soon after Iraq and Afghanistan. The ONLY situation where it would be politically acceptable in the US to do that would be if Assad somehow fired off a WMD at a US city or possession. Americans have reverted to their usual insularity and don't want to be the world's policeman or have anything to do with world problems, when they perceive they have many problems of their own domestically.

 

[James]

Perhaps they hope to weaken the government installations in order to assist the rebels, or to 'tame' Assad by reminding him that they could probably take him out if they really wanted to.

But I have no idea really. I am interested in current affairs but I have no military or IR education and I am not a General.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Perhaps they hope to weaken the government installations in order to assist the rebels, or to 'tame' Assad by reminding him that they could probably take him out if they really wanted to.

But I have no idea really. I am interested in current affairs but I have no military or IR education and I am not a General.

Don't worry - if history is anything to go by then neither do our leaders and generals.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

True...but they don't want American boots and American body bags coming back home. It will be Syrians who will be doing the heavy lifting on the ground if any intervention is to take place. It's political suicide for any US politician to send any US troops to any warzone so soon after Iraq and Afghanistan. The ONLY situation where it would be politically acceptable in the US to do that would be if Assad somehow fired off a WMD at a US city or possession. Americans have reverted to their usual insularity and don't want to be the world's policeman or have anything to do with world problems, when they perceive they have many problems of their own domestically.

The stakes are quite high in this situation. Syria has been eyed up by America since the Bush administration when it was labelled a supporter of terrorists and part of the axis of evil for its support of Hizbollah. Also given the Syrian regimes hostility towards Israel and Saudi Arabia and also considering its closeness to the Russians and Iran, Syria is quite a valuable prize. I reckon some boots will hit the ground to ensure that a future Syria is not just compliant to US designs but more importantly that the Russians and Iranians are sent packing and their influence in such an important region is reduced.

I don't think it will be too difficult to convince Americans. Manufacture a bogus threat to US bases in Iraq or just plaster gassed kids on every news channel for a fortnight and the public will be on side.

Of course with you actually residing in the states, you are in a better position to judge what the American public will tolerate.

 

[OZGOD]

Perhaps they hope to weaken the government installations in order to assist the rebels, or to 'tame' Assad by reminding him that they could probably take him out if they really wanted to.

But I have no idea really. I am interested in current affairs but I have no military or IR education and I am not a General.

I think it will be a couple of reasons:

1. punitive - make sure that anyone who thinks of doing this around the world knows there will be consequences

2. weaken Assad politically and militarily, similar to what they did in Libya, to assist in regime change that would be driven by the Syrian political party/leader of their choice

One thing's for sure, they will do this at the least possible risk to American/British/whoever lives. They want to make a statement, but no body bags draped in American flags going back home.

 

[Haroon786]

Malcolm X made a statement about newspapers and the press, along the lines of" if you are not careful, then they will make you believe that the opressors are the oppressed and the oppressed the oppressors ".

 

[Somali Pirate]

There is no need for american boots on the ground because the syrians can take out assad on their own. The fsa if you remember comprises of defected syrian soliders and retired generals and colonels. The SAA army is a shade of its former self. The sunnis who formed the core of the army have left it.

Thats why assad resorted to fattening his hollow forces with iranian and hezbollat foot soldiers. But even they are realising fighting syrians in their own country is no easy task.

Today the fsa took over khanseer town cutting the regime from alleppo to hama. All that without tomahawks and b52 bombers.

Just exactly what you think will happen when the first cruise missile is launched at assad air bases?


Assad cannot win. he's a minority repressing a majority. You cant beat demographics. he tried it by gassing and bombing and after 2 years the fsa is till there.

 

[OZGOD]

The stakes are quite high in this situation. Syria has been eyed up by America since the Bush administration when it was labelled a supporter of terrorists and part of the axis of evil for its support of Hizbollah. Also given the Syrian regimes hostility towards Israel and Saudi Arabia and also considering its closeness to the Russians and Iran, Syria is quite a valuable prize. I reckon some boots will hit the ground to ensure that a future Syria is not just compliant to US designs but more importantly that the Russians and Iranians are sent packing and their influence in such an important region is reduced.

I don't think it will be too difficult to convince Americans. Manufacture a bogus threat to US bases in Iraq or just plaster gassed kids on every news channel for a fortnight and the public will be on side.

Of course with you actually residing in the states, you are in a better position to judge what the American public will tolerate.

Trust me...it won't happen. One thing that all the political parties here agree on is no more American deaths in foreign wars where the US does not have a direct stake. The part that I highlighted in your post is EXACTLY the reasons that Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld et al gave for the invasion of Iraq: a) get rid of Saddam. b) get rid of Al Quaeda and other terrorists in Iraq; c) create a puppet government that will be favourable to the US and reduce Iranian/Syrian influence in the ME while strengthening the US and Israeli position; and d) gain control over the oilfields.

Where are we today in Iraq? Thousands of bodybags later, US influence is lower than ever in the region, Iran is even more influential in Iraq via al-Maliki, Iraq is a bigger haven for terrorists than before and the US has no more control over the oilfields than it did in 2003. American politicians aren't the smartest but even they know that it would be political suicide to send American soldiers overseas so soon after Iraq and Afghanistan. They couldn't get their troops out of there fast enough. Not even Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh would be stupid enough to advocate a ground intervention - just watch what they will be saying. Plus, and I'm being a bit cynical here - it's not US citizens that have been gassed.

No, if they do something it will be something that won't have any blowback to them. What will happen will be intervention of low risk to US lives, similar to what they have been doing in Pakistanf for years. Drones, standoff weapons, or funding Syrian forces to do the heavy work of bleeding and dying.

 

[James]

Would a ground invasion succeed? I was just reading about the very large Syrian military and also their advanced intelligence services. Although as I read above, there are potentially decisive splits within the military due to conscription and cultural/religious differences.

 

[OZGOD]

Would a ground invasion succeed? I was just reading about the very large Syrian military and also their advanced intelligence services. Although as I read above, there are potentially decisive splits within the military due to conscription and cultural/religious differences.

Depends on what you mean by "succeed". If by succeed you mean would a ground invasion be able to militarily defeat the Syrian armed forces in symmetrical combat to the point where they cease to become a threat to anyone, and to remove Assad as head of state, then the answer is yes. Iraq was far more powerful militarily in 2003 than a divided Syria is today, and the Seppos rolled them in less than a month I think. The Iraq military ceased to be a viable force a few days into the war, the US and UK controlled Iraqi airspace after day 2 I think. And when the Allied armor rolled into the country they swept the Iraqis aside like dirt on a smooth tile floor.

But symmetrical combat in a ground war is one thing. Regime change is not achieved simply by achieving military objectives, as George W Bush found to his detriment after pronouncing the Iraq war "Mission Accomplished" on 1 May 2003. 5 years after that statement more US soldiers had died in assymetric combat against IEDs, suicide bombers, etc. that year alone than in the entire invasion phase which lasted 2 months. They weren't any more liked by the Iraqis, the country wasn't any more stable than before.

There is no way that a ground invasion will succeed in enforcing regime change, or creating a puppet state in the ME that is sympathetic to the US. Ground invasions cannot kill ideologies. It would require an occupation that would take years, maybe decades, do to that, and as soon as they left things would likely revert to where they were before they arrived.

 

[90MPH]

I don't think the West nor anyone looking at the conflict objectively wants the current regime to collapse completley because that will just simply crreate total anarchy for years to come. It will also create a vacum for the more fanatical groups to fill which again most do not want.

What they do want is Assad and his henchman to leave. This will create an opportunity for the opposition to negotiate and come to an agreement.

Although I have no doubt Assad will soon be gone I have my doubts if anything transparent will happen. There are just too many groups fighting in the country with vested interests.

 

[OZGOD]

I don't think the West nor anyone looking at the conflict objectively wants the current regime to collapse completley because that will just simply crreate total anarchy for years to come. It will also create a vacum for the more fanatical groups to fill which again most do not want.

What they do want is Assad and his henchman to leave. This will create an opportunity for the opposition to negotiate and come to an agreement.

Although I have no doubt Assad will soon be gone I have my doubts if anything transparent will happen. There are just too many groups fighting in the country with vested interests.

I don't know if they want Assad to leave right away, before the opposition is ready to take power and start to govern. You would just end up with another Iraq or Libya with competing factions fighting each other. They don't fully trust the opposition yet in any case - they don't know how the opposition will relate to the US should they end up coming to power.

I reckon the Seppos figure they need to do something because this use of chemical weapons by (presumably) Assad was done after Obama made a big deal of the "red line that must not be crossed" (using chem weps) last year. So if they did nothing it shows their word means nothing. But I think what the Americans really want is for Assad and the opposition to keep fighting each other, exhausting Assad's resources over time. Assad is the devil they know right now - the Syrian opposition is the devil they don't know. Will they turn out to be another al-Maliki, who ended up doing deals with Iran? Or will they be another Karzai, who looks to be biting the hand that feeds him? Or could they turn into a Musharraf, who would toe the US line? I don't think the Americans know that at the moment and they need time to figure it out.

 

[oyei]

Those who predicted this whole Arab spring even before it had started or was there any hint of Arab spring to began, I used to think of them as crazy people, i guess they knew what they were talking about.

 

[Sjaloha]

I don't know if they want Assad to leave right away, before the opposition is ready to take power and start to govern. You would just end up with another Iraq or Libya with competing factions fighting each other. They don't fully trust the opposition yet in any case - they don't know how the opposition will relate to the US should they end up coming to power.

I reckon the Seppos figure they need to do something because this use of chemical weapons by (presumably) Assad was done after Obama made a big deal of the "red line that must not be crossed" (using chem weps) last year. So if they did nothing it shows their word means nothing. But I think what the Americans really want is for Assad and the opposition to keep fighting each other, exhausting Assad's resources over time. Assad is the devil they know right now - the Syrian opposition is the devil they don't know. Will they turn out to be another al-Maliki, who ended up doing deals with Iran? Or will they be another Karzai, who looks to be biting the hand that feeds him? Or could they turn into a Musharraf, who would toe the US line? I don't think the Americans know that at the moment and they need time to figure it out.

Very good post

 

[Cracket]

Those who predicted this whole Arab spring even before it had started or was there any hint of Arab spring to began, I used to think of them as crazy people, i guess they knew what they were talking about.

That's how it is every time. People first always laugh at them and call them tinfoil conspirators. They then believe them only when it is blatantly obvious.

In any case, Assad most likely did not launch that gas attack, but he is finished. Its obvious US wants to invade Syria. And what US wants, US gets

Iran needs to enjoy the time it has now, because once Syria is invaded, no force in this world - absolutely none at all will - stop the US from invading Iran. Iran is AIPAC's End Game.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Those who predicted this whole Arab spring even before it had started or was there any hint of Arab spring to began, I used to think of them as crazy people, i guess they knew what they were talking about.

Arab spring was to turn into an Arab winter.

It's a good to thread to read from the beginning. The chemical weapon propaganda has been building up for over a year. Syria is a threat to Israel, it must go down. Obama & Cameron have no choice but to cause conflict with Syria, this was planned many years ago, a continuation of justifications from the false flag of 911. People knew then the long term motive was to destroy Muslim nations who are considered to be a threat to Israel, Syria and Iran two biggest threats. Syria is such a strategic nation in this plan because of it's location to Iran and having Russia as a close ally. If the partnership with Russia can be broken then a new Syria will wage sectarian war against Iran making it easy work for their Zionist agenda. Iran cannot be attacked in the same way as Syria because the Russians will certainly see an attack on Iran as a responsibility to retaliate. An attack on Iran will also raise oil prices destroying the western economy along with the world. Why kill people when you can get them to kill each other?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Depends on what you mean by "succeed". If by succeed you mean would a ground invasion be able to militarily defeat the Syrian armed forces in symmetrical combat to the point where they cease to become a threat to anyone, and to remove Assad as head of state, then the answer is yes. Iraq was far more powerful militarily in 2003 than a divided Syria is today, and the Seppos rolled them in less than a month I think. The Iraq military ceased to be a viable force a few days into the war, the US and UK controlled Iraqi airspace after day 2 I think. And when the Allied armor rolled into the country they swept the Iraqis aside like dirt on a smooth tile floor.

The Syrian army is far superior to the Iraqi army of 2003. Russia has delivered them the s-300 which is probably the worlds best anti aircraft missile system which can defend against both cruise missiles and fighter jets. It just depends if the Syrians have got them ready in time. Unlike Iraq Syria would to continue to receive weapons from it's allies in the region. It;s army have been beating up the foreign backed militants so badly which is why there is a desperation on one side. I don't think Syria can be defeated by strikes and the good old 'rebels' like Libya.

But symmetrical combat in a ground war is one thing. Regime change is not achieved simply by achieving military objectives, as George W Bush found to his detriment after pronouncing the Iraq war "Mission Accomplished" on 1 May 2003. 5 years after that statement more US soldiers had died in assymetric combat against IEDs, suicide bombers, etc. that year alone than in the entire invasion phase which lasted 2 months. They weren't any more liked by the Iraqis, the country wasn't any more stable than before.

There is no way that a ground invasion will succeed in enforcing regime change, or creating a puppet state in the ME that is sympathetic to the US. Ground invasions cannot kill ideologies. It would require an occupation that would take years, maybe decades, do to that, and as soon as they left things would likely revert to where they were before they arrived.

The whole reason for paying mercenaries is to get their boots on the grounds and not yours. The US is finished as a ground force army, it's been embarrassed in Iraq and Syria. It now develops covert means with technology such as drones and surveillance to fight for it's Zionist agenda. You have the most advanced societies in history with huge technological and warfare capabilities spreading their imperial terrorism (for Zionism), it will use the any and the best means to destroy their perceived enemies. Since 911 the whole setting up of this regions destruction has been a military success, the tactics employed esp the covert ones have been new to military warfare.

 

[Cracket]

Really good read. Assad interviewed:

http://izvestia.ru/news/556048

 

[saeedhk]

This is propaganda at its best.

 

[LongHorn]

Is it true that a UN Chemical weapons team came to Syria just 2 days before the "attack"?

 

[saeedhk]

^Yes.I think one or two days before the attack.

 

[James]

There will be an unspecified strike on Syria this week by the West. Just confirmed by Channel 4 through Reuters.

 

[saeedhk]

US ready to attack Syria,possible strikes on Thursday.

 

[Markhor]

You kinda wish you could just turn back the clock to 1919 and avoid the bloodshed that would follow for the next century. Ultimately these Middle Eastern countries were created artificially, with no real rhyme or reason and we see these Arab states as melting pots of different sects and ethnicities, exploding today before our eyes.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, Assad's biggest mistake was overreacting to those high school student protests, after that the conflict snowballed out of control and the opposition became hijacked by some unsavoury elements.

Russia and China's stance is more pragmatic than merely commercial interests, even Lord Owen, former UK Foreign Secretary agrees with their stance somewhat. What they're saying is that they don't want to see Assad remain in power in the long-term but they want at least a transition period until democratic elections are held so that instability is avoided and that intervention on behalf of the rebels could empower the likes of the Al Nusra Front even more.

The Russians are also still unhappy over the way the Libyan intervention took place.

Even General Dempsey is saying that there is not a single leader amongst the Syrian opposition who could realistically take over from Assad right now. A lawless Syria post-Assad would be a hotbed of terrorism that would be impossible to contain.

Russia don't want a Chechnya in Syria, home to their only Mediterranean port of Tartus. With NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014, and with militants roaming freely across the Middle East now, armed by the Gulf states, they IMO see a northward drift of militancy that will explode in their laps. China also are facing their issues with militancy themselves.

The Russian FM is saying that western military intervention without a UN mandate would be illegal.

Whatever happens in terms of a western military strike though, certainly this conflict has been a throwback to the Cold War days with the west and Russia once again at loggerheads.

 

[Markhor]

Regarding the Russian-Saudi Arabia talks - wow it seems explosive according to this article. God knows how the details were leaked as this is a very high-ranking meeting between Prince Bandar and Vladimir Putin.

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/08/27/syria-russia-saudi-oil-deal/

LONDON — Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.

There is little to be gained from intervening in Syria: the goal is unclear, and odds on success are slight. The only certainty is that the U.S. will be blamed.

The revelations come amid high tension in the Middle East, with U.S., British, and French warships poised for missile strikes against Syria, and Iran threatening to retaliate.

The strategic jitters pushed Brent crude prices to a five-month high of US$112 a barrel. “We are only one incident away from a serious oil spike. The market is a lot tighter than people think,” said Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review.

Leaked transcripts of a behind closed doors meeting between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan shed an extraordinary light on the hard-nosed realpolitik of the two sides.

Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, allegedly confronted the Kremlin with a mix of inducements and threats in a bid to break the deadlock over Syria. “Let us examine how to put together a unified Russian-Saudi strategy on the subject of oil. The aim is to agree on the price of oil and production quantities that keep the price stable in global oil markets,” he is claimed to have said at the four-hour meeting with Mr Putin.

“We understand Russia’s great interest in the oil and gas in the Mediterranean from Israel to Cyprus. And we understand the importance of the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. We are not interested in competing with that. We can cooperate in this area,” he said, purporting to speak with the full backing of the U.S..

Syria will defend itself using ‘all means available’ in case of U.S. strike, foreign minister says
U.S. lays groundwork for strike against Syria as Kerry claims chemical attack was a ‘moral obscenity’
The talks appear to offer an alliance between the OPEC cartel and Russia, which together produce more than 40 million barrels a day of oil, 45% of global output. Such a move would alter the strategic landscape.

The details of the talks were leaked to the Russian press. A more detailed version has since appeared in the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, which has Hizbollah links and is hostile to the Saudis.

As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the Games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said.

Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on and off. “We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria’s political future.”

President Putin has long been pushing for a global gas cartel, issuing the “Moscow Declaration” last month to “defend suppliers and resist unfair pressure”.

Mr Skrebowski said it is unclear what the Saudis can really offer the Russians on gas, beyond using leverage over Qatar and others to cut output of liquefied natural gas.

Saudi Arabia could help boost oil prices by restricting its own supply. This would be a shot in the arm for Russia, but it would be a dangerous strategy if it pushed prices to levels that put the global economic recovery at risk.

Mr Skrebowski said trouble is brewing in supply states. “Libya is reverting to war lordism. Nigeria is drifting into a bandit state with steady loss of output. And Iraq is going back to the sort of Sunni-Shia civil war we saw in 2006-07,” he said.

The Putin-Bandar meeting took place three weeks ago. Mr Putin was unmoved by the Saudi offer. “We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters,” he said, referring to footage showing a Jihadist rebel eating the heart and liver of a Syrian soldier.

Prince Bandar said that there can be “no escape from the military option” if Russia declines the olive branch. Events are unfolding exactly as he foretold.

Those liver eaters But wow, the Saudis are threatening the Winter Olympics in Russia amongst other things.

 

[Markhor]

Arab spring was to turn into an Arab winter.

It's a good to thread to read from the beginning. The chemical weapon propaganda has been building up for over a year. Syria is a threat to Israel, it must go down. Obama & Cameron have no choice but to cause conflict with Syria, this was planned many years ago, a continuation of justifications from the false flag of 911. People knew then the long term motive was to destroy Muslim nations who are considered to be a threat to Israel, Syria and Iran two biggest threats. Syria is such a strategic nation in this plan because of it's location to Iran and having Russia as a close ally. If the partnership with Russia can be broken then a new Syria will wage sectarian war against Iran making it easy work for their Zionist agenda. Iran cannot be attacked in the same way as Syria because the Russians will certainly see an attack on Iran as a responsibility to retaliate. An attack on Iran will also raise oil prices destroying the western economy along with the world. Why kill people when you can get them to kill each other?

KKWC don't necessarily think Russia is a friend of the Muslim world. The only reason they are supporting Assad is because they see the Syrian opposition as Islamist-dominated and Moscow would much rather see secular authoritarian governments as opposed to democratically elected Islamist governments.

Here is an article explaining Russia's stance by a Russian director of research Ruslan Pukhov.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/opinion/why-russia-supports-syria.html?_r=0

It talks about not overstating Russia's support for Assad:

Syria is among Russia’s significant customers, but it is by no means one of the key buyers of Russian arms — accounting for just 5 percent of Russia’s global arms sales in 2011.

Since 2005, Russian defense contracts with Syria have amounted to only about $5.5 billion

This sums up Russia's position in all of this.

Most Russian observers believe that Arab revolutions have completely destabilized the region and cleared the road to power for the Islamists.

Western hypocrisy is very clear to see but it doesn't make Russia's motives any better.

 

[pakistanalltheway]

Syrian Civil War

So has Russia sold out yet ?

 

[oyei]

Regarding the Russian-Saudi Arabia talks - wow it seems explosive according to this article. God knows how the details were leaked as this is a very high-ranking meeting between Prince Bandar and Vladimir Putin.

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/08/27/syria-russia-saudi-oil-deal/



Those liver eaters But wow, the Saudis are threatening the Winter Olympics in Russia amongst other things.

I'd be afraid to participate in any Olympics, for these prostitute (politicians) life of human being has no value.

 

[LongHorn]

So Saudis threaten terrorist attacks, nothing happens to them
they commit terrorist attacks, nothing happen to them
they support massacres, nothing happens

What will it take to teach them to never spread fitna in other countries ?

 

[the Great Khan]

so the saudis have admitted they support terrorists and by default the US does too. So can we now put to bed the notion that 9/11 wasnt an inside job?

also do people know that the TTP is funded by the saudis and the uae. Given training by the cia and raw?

 

[saeedhk]

Regarding the Russian-Saudi Arabia talks - wow it seems explosive according to this article. God knows how the details were leaked as this is a very high-ranking meeting between Prince Bandar and Vladimir Putin.

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/08/27/syria-russia-saudi-oil-deal/



Those liver eaters But wow, the Saudis are threatening the Winter Olympics in Russia amongst other things.

Good response by Putin to those puppets.

 

[wasim-fan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html

 

[in_cutter]

Syrian Civil War

Looks like the war-mongers are frothing at their mouths with the prospects of an attack.

 

[bin_pendi_ka_lota]

One Dictator of the region wants another dictator of the region out.... It is as simple as that.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

The Prince: Meet the Man Who Co-Opted Democracy in the Middle East

Now that the Arab Spring has been turned into a totally owned subsidiary of the Saudi royal family, it is time to honor Prince Bandar bin Sultan as the most effective Machiavellian politician of the modern era. How slick for this head of the Saudi Intelligence Agency to finance the Egyptian military's crushing of that nation's first-ever democratic election while being the main source of arms for pro-al-Qaida insurgents in Syria.

Just consider that a mere 12 years ago, this same Bandar was a beleaguered Saudi ambassador in Washington, a post he held from 1983 to 2005, attempting to explain his nation's connection to 15 Saudi nationals who had somehow secured legal documents to enter the U.S. and succeeded in hijacking planes that blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. How awkward given that the Saudi ambassador had been advocating that U.S. officials go easy on the Taliban government in Afghanistan, where those attacks incubated.

The ties between Saudi Arabia and the alleged al-Qaida terrorist attacks were manifest. The terrorists were followers of the Saudi-financed branch of Wahhabi Islam and their top leader, Osama bin Laden, was a scion of one of the most powerful families in the Saudi kingdom, which, along with the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan, had been the only three nations in the world to recognize the legitimacy of the Taliban government in Afghanistan that provided sanctuary to al-Qaida. Yet Bandar had no difficulty arranging safe passage out of Washington for many Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family that U.S. intelligence agents might have wanted to interrogate instead of escorting them to safety back in the kingdom.

But the U.S. war on terror quickly took a marvelous turn from the point of view of the Saudi monarchy. Instead of focusing on those who attacked us and their religious and financial ties to the Saudi royal family, the U.S. began a mad hunt to destroy those who had absolutely nothing to do with the assaults of 9/11.

Saddam Hussein in Iraq came quickly to mind, even though he had brutally crushed the al-Qaida efforts in his own country. But Hussein had earlier made the mistake of attacking the oil sheikdom of Kuwait, an acquiescent ally of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Suddenly, a second war against Iraq was in order. The result was to vastly increase the power of Iran in Iraq and the region, but mistakes happen.

Now Iran is once again firmly established as the main enemy of freedom, despite the annoying fact that the Shiite leadership had nothing to do with those 9/11 attacks. And even though many of the folks attempting to overthrow the government in Syria are sympathetic to al-Qaida, the Assad government's connection with Iran trumps that concern for U.S. hawks. The Saudis have the wherewithal to buy our very expensive war toys; need we say more?

It is now time for the Saudi Spring, and as The Wall Street Journal on Sunday detailed the monarchy's well-financed effort to shape the region's politics to its liking, "... Saudi Arabia's efforts in Syria are just one sign of its broader effort to expand its regional influence. The Saudis also have been outspoken supporters of the Egyptian military in its drive to squelch the Muslim Brotherhood, backing that up with big chunks of cash."

That big chunk of cash, $12 billion from the UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, is not aimed at stopping terrorism, if by that we mean the sort of attacks associated with 9/11 and al-Qaida. As the Journal story reminded, "A generation ago, Prince Bandar, in a role foreshadowing his current one on behalf of Syrian opposition, helped the CIA arm the Afghan rebels who were resisting occupation by Soviet troops." That's how the Saudi bin Laden came to be in Afghanistan. Earlier, Bandar had been involved in the CIA's effort to deliver arms from Iran to the Contras in Nicaragua.

Can you imagine the blowback from the prince's current efforts to get the United States to once again meddle madly in a region that we don't care to comprehend? Why not ask Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham who, according to the Journal, met with Bandar in September to urge the Saudis to provide the Syrian rebels with more potent weapons.

Or ask Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who was among those courted by Bandar. As the Journal described the Saudi junket by members of the congressional intelligence committees, "They [the Saudis] arranged a trip for committee leaders to Riyadh, where Prince Bandar laid out the Saudi strategy. It was a reunion of sorts, officials said, with Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) warmly scolding Prince Bandar about his smoking."

How cozy. Perhaps next time they buddy up, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee can find time to chide the prince about his consistently bad advice to Americans on fighting terrorism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/the-prince-meet-the-man-w_b_3820835.html

 

[OZGOD]

The Syrian army is far superior to the Iraqi army of 2003. Russia has delivered them the s-300 which is probably the worlds best anti aircraft missile system which can defend against both cruise missiles and fighter jets. It just depends if the Syrians have got them ready in time. Unlike Iraq Syria would to continue to receive weapons from it's allies in the region. It;s army have been beating up the foreign backed militants so badly which is why there is a desperation on one side. I don't think Syria can be defeated by strikes and the good old 'rebels' like Libya.

The whole reason for paying mercenaries is to get their boots on the grounds and not yours. The US is finished as a ground force army, it's been embarrassed in Iraq and Syria. It now develops covert means with technology such as drones and surveillance to fight for it's Zionist agenda. You have the most advanced societies in history with huge technological and warfare capabilities spreading their imperial terrorism (for Zionism), it will use the any and the best means to destroy their perceived enemies. Since 911 the whole setting up of this regions destruction has been a military success, the tactics employed esp the covert ones have been new to military warfare.

There's a difference between symmetrical and assymetric combat though. In a conventional war such as would happen with an initial invasion (which I repeat will never happen, ask anyone living here in the US if they think that the American public would accept that in any form and the answer will be NO) the US military would blow Syria and probably most other non-great power militaries away. It's what happens AFTER that that the US and any other conventional military in any country would struggle with - fighting against suicide bombers, IEDs, people in a jeep with a rocket launcher, etc.

What will happen with be standoff cruise missile strikes, Predator attacks, and funding opposition groups to destabilize things (something all powers have been doing since the time of the Romans and probably before them). Someone else will be doing the bleeding and dying however.

 

[Cracket]

And the ships are asail. Syria will be attacked by US on Thursday if given the order. The world needs to pray for Syrian people now.

 

[Haroon786]

So WW3 is on the cards

 

[OZGOD]

Russia and China's stance is more pragmatic than merely commercial interests, even Lord Owen, former UK Foreign Secretary agrees with their stance somewhat. What they're saying is that they don't want to see Assad remain in power in the long-term but they want at least a transition period until democratic elections are held so that instability is avoided and that intervention on behalf of the rebels could empower the likes of the Al Nusra Front even more.

The Russians are also still unhappy over the way the Libyan intervention took place.

Even General Dempsey is saying that there is not a single leader amongst the Syrian opposition who could realistically take over from Assad right now. A lawless Syria post-Assad would be a hotbed of terrorism that would be impossible to contain.

Russia don't want a Chechnya in Syria, home to their only Mediterranean port of Tartus. With NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014, and with militants roaming freely across the Middle East now, armed by the Gulf states, they IMO see a northward drift of militancy that will explode in their laps. China also are facing their issues with militancy themselves.

Exactly. Picture this: Assad toppled, no government in Damascus and a bunch of disparate opposition groups, some of which will most likely be hostile to the US, in possession of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal. The US and Russia don't want Assad gone too quickly. The US will bloody his nose, but that's about it.

 

[wasim-fan]

One Dictator of the region wants another dictator of the region out.... It is as simple as that.

Not as simple as that. There is whole Sunni Shia equation also.

 

[Markhor]

Wow, those articles are the juicy insider stuff that ordinary people never get to see. This power-hungry prince and the Saudis are trying to reshape the entire region, and don't care how much blood is spilled.

Also this thread can be merged with the Syrian Civil War thread, same topics discussed.

 

[Haroon786]

One thing that is 100% guaranteed is that there will be a lot of bloodshed.

 

[Pakz]

This may sound odd, but will all this going on Syria, Egypt and whatever else is happens. I have not be able to keep updated on everything and all the events and when I try to read posts on here I end up thinking what's all this etc. I seem to be confused of the whole situation as I haven't even watched the news properly and seeing as though there are many people who have quite a bit of knowledge, Could some one give a brief unbiased summary of events, if not a article that is good and informative.

 

[Saeed]

Must be pretty easy to start civil wars in arab countries.

 

[Saeed]

So WW3 is on the cards

Don't think so.

 

[saeedhk]

Russia has chickened out of militarily defending Assad,says it will not go to war.

 

[Haroon786]

Does anyone believe that there is a certain shadow government or illuminati behind this ?

 

[Somali Pirate]

Russia as per usual has no balls. They are probably regretting not taking that saudi offer.

Assad will regret the day he ordered those chemical attacks. Those chemicals mind you are weapons he intended to use on israel ina future war. instead he used it in downtown damascus. what does that say about assad i ask to his loyal fools on here?


Assad only knows how to kill his own people. israel attacked him three times and his response was to bomb syrian cities. All the talk about iran hezbollah assad resistance are just flash in the pan.

Shafi al ajmi a firebrand of a man said once 'Syria will be the graveyard of hezbollah' How true that is. But he forget one more thing. syria will be the end of persian hopes and dreams for the gulf. And you can add the shia crescent to it as well.

 

[Robert]

And the ships are asail. Syria will be attacked by US on Thursday if given the order. The world needs to pray for Syrian people now.

They should have been doing that a year ago, before 100,000 died.

Does anyone believe that there is a certain shadow government or illuminati behind this ?

Only kids and people who haven't learned to think critically believe in conspiracy theory. The older I get, the more I believe that bad things happen because people aren't in control - they go home early, or fall asleep on duty, or don't open a crucial email in time or don't pick the phone up when it rings, or aren't trained properly.

************

If the USN is going to shoot off a few cruise missile I can see mass defections from the Syrian Army, in which case his position will become untenable. NATO's trick is to make sure that none of the Sarin stocks fall into Islamist hands, in which case I imagine a few special forces insertions might take place.

Who knows what will rise out of the resulting chaos? Nothing good, I suspect.

 

[USaqaf]

Bad decision to strike Syria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23849587

 

[waqar goraya]

Ok, we have plenty of posts on possibilities, probabilities and presumptions.

But what exactly concerns West that who rules in Syria and what happens in their country?

This is all because Assad led Syria is an ally of Hezbollah and Iran where as Iran and Hezbollah are a threat to Israel? Is it that simple?

Markhor I consider you one of the best ppers here when it comes to current affairs. KKWC, could also shed some light here for a layman like me..

 

[Yossarian]

The Saudi rulers will do whatever it takes to ensure that notions of democracy and 'Arab Spring' do not reach and take hold inside The Kingdom itself, otherwise the Saudi Royal Family could be the Gadaffi's and Assad's of tomorrow. Sadly for them, all their money and efforts might delay this process but will never be able to stop it.

The days of Kings and Sheikhs ruling over the massess with absolute power are fast coming to an end. The peoples of Saudi Arabia, just like people have done and are doing elsewhere, will eventually realise that they too want to decide who rules over them and that privelage not be the sole preserve of the descendents of Abdul Aziz Al Saud.

 

[Markhor]

This may sound odd, but will all this going on Syria, Egypt and whatever else is happens. I have not be able to keep updated on everything and all the events and when I try to read posts on here I end up thinking what's all this etc. I seem to be confused of the whole situation as I haven't even watched the news properly and seeing as though there are many people who have quite a bit of knowledge, Could some one give a brief unbiased summary of events, if not a article that is good and informative.

Ok, we have plenty of posts on possibilities, probabilities and presumptions.

But what exactly concerns West that who rules in Syria and what happens in their country?

This is all because Assad led Syria is an ally of Hezbollah and Iran where as Iran and Hezbollah are a threat to Israel? Is it that simple?

Markhor I consider you one of the best ppers here when it comes to current affairs. KKWC, could also shed some light here for a layman like me..

Thanks for the compliments and yes its mainly Iran - the West and their allies such as Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Qatar and the other Gulf states want to remove Iran's number one ally in the region which is the Assad regime.

Saudis and the Gulf states also see Iran as a threat.

What started as an internal Syrian dispute has descended into a regional proxy war between the west, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states on one side and Iran, Syria, Russia and China on the other.

 

[Bashira_taeli]

The Saudi rulers will do whatever it takes to ensure that notions of democracy and 'Arab Spring' do not reach and take hold inside The Kingdom itself, otherwise the Saudi Royal Family could be the Gadaffi's and Assad's of tomorrow. Sadly for them, all their money and efforts might delay this process but will never be able to stop it.

The days of Kings and Sheikhs ruling over the massess with absolute power are fast coming to an end. The peoples of Saudi Arabia, just like people have done and are doing elsewhere, will eventually realise that they too want to decide who rules over them and that privelage not be the sole preserve of the descendents of Abdul Aziz Al Saud.

Doesn't the situation in Bahrain disapproves your theory?

The majority don't want to be ruled by the Monarch there. They have protested against the regime. Protests even became violent at times with Saudis jumping in with their military. Lots of killings, imprisonments, general oppression, even demolition of mosques. However the regime still sits strong.

Saudis are doing the same in Qatif.

What saved the Al Khalifah, will and is saving the Al Sauds.

 

[MR__KHAN__JI]

Re: Syrian Civil War

Ok, we have plenty of posts on possibilities, probabilities and presumptions.

But what exactly concerns West that who rules in Syria and what happens in their country?

This is all because Assad led Syria is an ally of Hezbollah and Iran where as Iran and Hezbollah are a threat to Israel? Is it that simple?

Markhor I consider you one of the best ppers here when it comes to current affairs. KKWC, could also shed some light here for a layman like me..

That simple.

Hizb defeated israel in the last battle. Israel and allies wants revenge.

Hizb (and iran) are the real enemy and syria is the weak link...

Take out asad and hizb is finished.

Only reason hizb are in Syria. Self survival.

 

[DRS]

Disclaimer: Got it from Wikipedia, hence its authenticity and credibility can invariably be doubted.

In the Red, are areas being controlled by Syria Army

In the Green, are areas being controlled by Free Syrian Army

The Yellow represent, YGO. Couldn't know much about it from there.

Going by the picture, it seems as though Free Syrian army has an upper hand of the government. They have also the areas surrounding the Airport under their control.

 

[90MPH]

^^No that's far fetched.

Hiz are a shia guerrilla organisation. Thier main base is in south Lebanon, not Syria. When Assad is toppled they will still be there for a long time. But obviously they will have a big problem with weapons being supplied to them as Syria was a big supplier and easily accessible for them.

 

[Yossarian]

Doesn't the situation in Bahrain disapproves your theory?

The majority don't want to be ruled by the Monarch there. They have protested against the regime. Protests even became violent at times with Saudis jumping in with their military. Lots of killings, imprisonments, general oppression, even demolition of mosques. However the regime still sits strong.

Saudis are doing the same in Qatif.

What saved the Al Khalifah, will and is saving the Al Sauds.

It may save them for a year, 5 years, even 20 years ... but everyday the older generations who accepted being ruled by princes, sheikhs and kings that treated them and their countries like their own personal playthings, are unable to get their sons, and daughters, grandsons and grandaughters, to think along similar lines and accept the status quo.

The internet, education, social media, ease of travel, contact with outsiders .. are all playing a part in this process of emancipation of the masses. Sure, there will be setbacks ... but like King Canute, these Kings, Sheikhs and Princes will not be able to keep pushing back the tide forever.

 

[Saeed]

Is pakistani involved in this conflict in anyway?

 

[Bashira_taeli]

Is pakistani involved in this conflict in anyway?

Officially no, but there are reports that many TTP/LeJ fighters have gone to Syria to join the rebel ranks. A few days ago an Iranian news agencies reported that a flight carrying dead bodies of 80 such fighters landed in Pakistan.

 

[DRS]

Officially no, but there are reports that many TTP/LeJ fighters have gone to Syria to join the rebel ranks. A few days ago an Iranian news agencies reported that a flight carrying dead bodies of 80 such fighters landed in Pakistan.

To me it sounds like a propaganda. How can these animals ever get to step on an airline, which took them thousands of miles away? Despite the belief, If there is any actuality of it, I would be prompted to believe that these mercenaries have gone to Syria after taking command from the same people who are behind the sectarian violence, directing them in Pakistan.

 

[Pakz]

Thanks for the compliments and yes its mainly Iran - the West and their allies such as Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Qatar and the other Gulf states want to remove Iran's number one ally in the region which is the Assad regime.

Saudis and the Gulf states also see Iran as a threat.

What started as an internal Syrian dispute has descended into a regional proxy war between the west, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states on one side and Iran, Syria, Russia and China on the other.

Thanks for a brief summary. It does look like a division of opinions, What do you see the outcome(s) of this, and what about the Egypt scenario or is that a completely different point. Any Iraq war, sort of outcomes of is that not the same?

One thing that can be said is that some level of activity (in terms of leaders meeting etc.) will take place whatever happens. I think it already has if I'm not wrong.

 

[DRS]

American forces are "ready" to launch strikes on Syria if President Barack Obama chooses to order an attack, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel says.

"We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfil and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take," Mr Hagel told the BBC.

The White House said the US would release intelligence on last week's suspected attack in the next few days.

The UK Parliament is to be recalled on Thursday to discuss possible responses.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the world could not stand idly by after seeing appalling scenes of death and suffering caused by suspected chemical weapons attacks.

Continue reading the main story
At the scene

Assaf Aboud
BBC Arabic, Damascus
A good number of Syrians, in particular those supporting the regime, believe the visit of the UN chemical weapons investigation team is nothing but a move to justify a military attack on Syria. The opposition, however, thinks that these visits will lead to some evidence being unearthed, proving that chemical weapons have been used against civilians by the Syrian regime.

Above all, fear and discomfort are palpable among those living in the capital. People are haunted by the possibility of a Western military strike on Syria, discussion of which is dominating the headlines of satellite channels.

"I don't want Syria to become another Iraq... Enough bloodshed," cried one Syrian woman.

"We, and thousands like us across Syria, will face any country that tries to attack us," threatened a young man, pointing at his weapon, which he uses to protect his neighbourhood. "These are Syria's problems and it is up to us, Syrians, to solve them."

The crisis follows last Wednesday's suspected chemical attack near the Syrian capital, Damascus, which reportedly killed more than 300 people.

French President Francois Hollande said France was "ready to punish" whoever was behind the attack, and had decided to increase military support for Syria's main opposition.

BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins says the US, UK and France will now have the larger task of building as wide a coalition as possible to support limited military action.

Meanwhile the Arab League said it held Syrian President Bashar al-Assad responsible for the attacks and called for UN action.

Syrian opposition sources have said they have been told to expect a Western intervention in the conflict imminently.

"There is no precise timing... but one can speak of an imminent international intervention against the regime. It's a question of days and not weeks," AFP news agency quoted Syrian National Coalition official Ahmad Ramadan as saying.

"There have been meetings between the Coalition, the [rebel] Free Syrian Army and allied countries during which possible targets have been discussed."

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

Mr Kerry is of course right that most people will think as he does, simply from watching the TV pictures. Some, however, will demand much stronger proof, particularly in the wake of the faulty intelligence that was used as a reason to go to war against Iraq”

image of Mark Mardell
Mark Mardell
North America editor
Read more from Mark
Russia and China, allies of the Syrian government, have stepped up their warnings against military intervention, with Moscow saying any such action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem has said he rejects "utterly and completely" claims that Syrian forces used chemical weapons, and his government has blamed rebel fighters.

On Monday, United Nations weapons inspectors were fired on while investigating one of the five alleged chemical weapons attack sites around Damascus.

'We are prepared'
Mr Hagel said the US Department of Defense had provided President Obama with "all options for all contingencies".

Continue reading the main story
Residents gather around a convoy of UN vehicles carrying a team of UN chemical weapons experts at one of the sites of an alleged poison gas attack in the Damascus suburb of Muadhamiya on 26 August 2013
UN chemical weapons inspectors spent nearly three hours in the suburb of Muadhamiya in western Damascus on Monday.
Continue reading the main story
1/3
"He has seen them, we are prepared," he told the BBC's Jon Sopel, adding: "We are ready to go."


Jay Carney says the US is weighing an "appropriate response" to the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria
Mr Hagel said that intelligence currently being gathered by the UN inspectors would confirm that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack last week.

"I think it's pretty clear that chemical weapons were used against people in Syria," he said.

Our correspondent says he left little doubt that he believed the Assad government was responsible, and was ready to execute the orders of his commander-in-chief.

Continue reading the main story
Models for possible intervention

Iraq 1991: US-led global military coalition, anchored in international law; explicit mandate from UN Security Council to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait
Balkans 1990s: US arms supplied to anti-Serb resistance in Croatia and Bosnia in defiance of UN-mandated embargo; later US-led air campaign against Serb paramilitaries. In 1999, US jets provided bulk of 38,000 Nato sorties against Serbia to prevent massacres in Kosovo - legally controversial with UN Security Council resolutions linked to "enforcement measures"
Somalia 1992-93: UN Security Council authorised creation of international force with aim of facilitating humanitarian supplies as Somali state failed. Gradual US military involvement without clear objective culminated in Black Hawk Down disaster in 1993. US troops pulled out
Libya 2011: France and UK sought UN Security Council authorisation for humanitarian operation in Benghazi in 2011. Russia and China abstained but did not veto resolution. Air offensive continued until fall of Gaddafi
Syria crisis: Western military options
Models for possible intervention
Press apprehension as Syria tension builds
Syria crisis: Where key countries stand
White House spokesman Jay Carney later said that a separate report on chemical weapons use being compiled by the US intelligence community would be published this week.

Mr Carney said that Mr Obama had a variety of options and was not limited to the use of force, adding that it was not Washington's intention to remove Mr Assad.

"The options we are considering are not about regime change," he said.

Meanwhile, warnings have been issued on sites linked to Islamic militants fighting for the rebels in Syria, saying that their leaders and training camps might also be targeted by a possible US-led attack, says BBC Arab affairs editor Sebastian Usher.

Several online sites linked to the Nusra Front and similar groups have advised militants not to hold meetings or gather in large numbers, and to change routines and locations, he says.

Western powers have made clear their distrust and dislike of groups like the Nusra Front, which have spearheaded rebel victories, although there has been no indication from the US or anyone else that jihadists would be targeted, he adds.

The UN says more than 100,000 people have been killed since the uprising against President Assad began more than two years ago. The conflict has produced more than 1.7 million registered refugees.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23849587

 

[Saeed]

Lets say if US some how defeat Al-Asad who will rule Syria?These rebels, as far as i know they have the same ideology as Al-Qaida.

 

[OZGOD]

Lets say if US some how defeat Al-Asad who will rule Syria?These rebels, as far as i know they have the same ideology as Al-Qaida.

I'm thinking that the US will make sure that Assad isn't too crippled by any attack. They have already made it clear that the reason is to punish Assad for using chem weps, not to change the regime. Assad is at least a known quantity to them, compared to the rebels who are a) unknown and b) fragmented.

Like I said before, their ideal scenario is to have the 2 groups fighting and weakening each other, but essentially maintaining a stalemate. Until they figure out who the most likely candidate to support will be.

 

[Markhor]

Is pakistani involved in this conflict in anyway?

Thankfully we're not - plus we have enough conflicts as it is !

Thanks for a brief summary. It does look like a division of opinions, What do you see the outcome(s) of this, and what about the Egypt scenario or is that a completely different point. Any Iraq war, sort of outcomes of is that not the same?

One thing that can be said is that some level of activity (in terms of leaders meeting etc.) will take place whatever happens. I think it already has if I'm not wrong.

These western air strikes could tilt the war in the rebels' favour but its a stalemate right now and its difficult to say.

After the Arab Spring, the new democracies have been unable to unite and stabilise the country. Egypt has suffered from a power struggle between the civilian government led by the Muslim Brotherhood and the military who have deposed the MB from office. Tunisia's Islamist government has faced protests and the Syrian conflict pretty much began in 2011 when the Arab Spring started. Libya is also unstable with different warring factions opposing each other. Iraq is still in a sectarian civil war.

There is the "Muslim ummah" for you in 2013 !

The whole region is in flux right now and one can only hope the bloodshed ends.

 

[niazi]

It is As-sad situation in Syria!

 

[soso_killer]

I can understand Putin's point of view, especially when they have to deal with islamic militants in Dagestan. So allowing islamic militants to run Syria will further put Russia in a compromised state.
Tough debate is Syria, but i do want Assad to step down. Hopefuly in a peaceful manner and no more bloodshed

 

[USaqaf]

What is Saudi's own regime then?

 

[majiz]

Only kids and people who haven't learned to think critically believe in conspiracy theory. .

define 'conspiracy theory'

can there be or is there no government conspiring ever? if you mean this i'm curious as to how thinking critically led you to this conclusion

 

[saeedhk]

Doesn't the situation in Bahrain disapproves your theory?

The majority don't want to be ruled by the Monarch there. They have protested against the regime. Protests even became violent at times with Saudis jumping in with their military. Lots of killings, imprisonments, general oppression, even demolition of mosques. However the regime still sits strong.

Saudis are doing the same in Qatif.

What saved the Al Khalifah, will and is saving the Al Sauds.

True.The situation in Bahrain where unarmed proteaterd are being killed is not being highligted in the media just because Bahrain is a west friendly nation.