What's new

The Middle East Crisis

Obama didnt take any questions, but a reporter shouted "Will you still strike Syria if Congress disapproves?"
 
Who says events in London has no effect on Washington ? The British Parliamentary vote and subsequent result has enforced a Congressional vote on September 9th when it reconvenes.

American PPers - what way is Congress likely to go ?
 
Last edited:
If I am not wrong Obama didnt go for congressional authorization for Libya attack. Dont know why is he going to congress this time.
 
The Reporter asked a pretty fair question, which if Obama had answered, it could have put his future plans in jeopardy.
 
pakistanalltheway said:
Bigger risks as compared to Libya and if this fails he can turn around and say you voted for this .
Click to expand...

I don't see Americans drawing any repercussion by having a go at Syria. They are not going to get their boots in Syria which Obama have iterated several times. Although, I suspect the Russians might not do anything significant other than whine over evidence because they don't want to get into debacle. So Americans chances of failing and turning back to say you voted are quite slim.
 
soso_killer said:
wow, atleast 1429 were killed. And if no intervention is taken it will be more. Must we have 50 000 dead before we open our eyes?
I mean whats 1000 people gassed to death right?
Click to expand...

if war or invasion does take place many more thousands will die. Just like Iraq.
 
Posted this in the other thread.

James said:
Although he is not required to, Obama has put his own military plans up for a Congressional vote.

I guess the UK reminded him of the democratic process!
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that Obama knows he is virtually guaranteed to get a 'yes' vote considering the control of the US Congress by AIPAC and associated groups, and how desperate the Israeli's are for America to do something about Syria's chemical weapons in case they get into the hands of the rebels.

And just in case there are some members of the Congress not subservient to AIPAC, the Saudi's and other Gulf Arab states will oil enough palms to ensure that they too will be in favour of attacking the Assad regime.


I'm getting a bit suspicious of this 'overwhelming evidence' that the Americans claim to have that show it was definitely the Assad govt. forces that launched the chemical attack. A bit like the 'overwhelming evidence' Colin Powell presented to the Security Council prior to the war. And we all know how (in)accurate that turned out to be.

Here is one example:
Now, Syria:
The US is certain an alleged poison gas attack in Syria was carried out by the regime of President Bashar al Assad after listening to intercepted telephone calls, according to reports.
http://news.sky.com/story/1134277/syria-phone-calls-prove-regime-behind-attack
Click to expand...

Then Iraq, Colin Powell at the UN
some of the sources are technical, such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites. Other sources are people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to

..

Let me begin by playing a tape for you. What you're about to hear is a conversation that my government monitored. It takes place on November 26 of last year, on the day before United Nations teams resumed inspections in Iraq.

The conversation involves two senior officers, a colonel and a brigadier general, from Iraq's elite military unit, the Republican Guard.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE) Speaking in Arabic.

(END AUDIO TAPE) POWELL: Let me pause and review some of the key elements of this conversation that you just heard between these two officers.

First, they acknowledge that our colleague, Mohamed ElBaradei, is coming, and they know what he's coming for, and they know he's coming the next day. He's coming to look for things that are prohibited. He is expecting these gentlemen to cooperate with him and not hide things.

But they're worried. "We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it?" What is their concern? Their concern is that it's something they should not have, something that should not be seen.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
majiz said:
naaaaah

too many neocons and zionists and zionist neocons
Click to expand...


Unlike the uk where miliband and his marxist background would always vote against a strike on soviet interests, obama and especially the republicans do not hold a similar nepotistic admiration
 
Check out this 7 month old report on Yahoo News

JY3je.jpg


US 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt': Report
By ANI | ANI – Wed 30 Jan, 2013

London, Jan 30 (ANI): The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad's regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.

A new report, that contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence, showed a scheme 'approved by Washington'.

As per the scheme 'Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons,' the Daily Mail reports.

Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.

According to Infowars.com, the December 25 email was sent from Britam's Business Development Director David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty.

The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.

According to the paper, the U.S. State Department has declined to comment on the matter. (ANI)
Click to expand...

http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html
 
chacha kashmiri said:
Unlike the uk where miliband and his marxist background would always vote against a strike on soviet interests, obama and especially the republicans do not hold a similar nepotistic admiration
Click to expand...

Interest or not they are not taking part in Syria killings which is good. Interest can go back to their hole even 1 innocent life matter more than interests.
 
Since American Civil War, weapon manufacturers have become an active catalyst in dictating foreign policies and military interventions benefiting their interests. Must say Obama has disappointed his voters playing into the hands of these power players.
 
Syrian Civil War

Bashira_taeli said:
If I am not wrong Obama didnt go for congressional authorization for Libya attack. Dont know why is he going to congress this time.
Click to expand...
Obama is a political animal through and through and he is focused on domestic issues. He doesn't want this war because, like Gaza, Pakistan and Iraq he could care less about civilians in those places dying as long as they are not American. Because he knows that the American public, like the British ultimately don't care enough to get involved and will be hostile to any attempt to do so. And he prefers US foreign intervention to be subtle and relatively unknown to the American public - drones, black ops, etc.

I mentioned it earlier in this thread - after the British vote I expected Obama would use the Congress as his get out of jail card. He made a mistake drawing his red line and now he needs to be seen as doing something. But doing something will be politically unpleasant, so he has delegated it to the Congress. This way he can take the credit if it succeeds and blame Congress if it does not.

Now that the responsibility and blame for any action has been hand balled to the Congress, I expect them to vote it down. There is a lot of antiwar, isolationist sentiment in the US. Even more so here, where people don't really care about what is going on in Syria because a) it is Syrians not Americans dying; b) the few of them who are actually informed know that "both sides are bad" (in the words of Newt Gingrich) and c) they are far more worried about domestic issues at the moment. Put it this way - the George Zimmerman trial got more news than the Egypt coup from networks here in the US.

The Iraq misadventure has made it very difficult for any US Congressman to sell any overseas intervention to his constituents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
Last edited:
OZGOD said:
Obama is a political animal through and through and he is focused on domestic issues. He doesn't want this war because, like Gaza, Pakistan and Iraq he could care less about civilians in those places dying as long as they are not American. Because he knows that the American public, like the British ultimately don't care enough to get involved and will be hostile to any attempt to do so. And he prefers US foreign intervention to be subtle and relatively unknown to the American public - drones, black ops, etc.

I mentioned it earlier in this thread - after the British vote I expected Obama would use the Congress as his get out of jail card. He made a mistake drawing his red line and now he needs to be seen as doing something. But doing something will be politically unpleasant, so he has delegated it to the Congress. This way he can take the credit if it succeeds and blame Congress if it does not.

Now that the responsibility and blame for any action has been hand balled to the Congress, I expect them to vote it down. There is a lot of antiwar, isolationist sentiment in the US. Even more so here, where people don't really care about what is going on in Syria because a) it is Syrians not Americans dying; b) the few of them who are actually informed know that "both sides are bad" (in the words of Newt Gingrich) and c) they are far more worried about domestic issues at the moment. Put it this way - the George Zimmerman trial got more news than the Egypt coup from networks here in the US.

The Iraq misadventure has made it very difficult for any US Congressman to sell any overseas intervention to his constituents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Click to expand...

Its hard not to believe that Obama doesn't want this war. If his statement of 2 days ago is anything to go by, he comes across as somewhat eager to launch those missiles. Even going as far as saying that he will not wait for the UN security council.

However I do agree that Obama has gone for a congressional vote just to share the onus of responsibility for the attack, however if AIPAC and the US defense contractors (Lockheed, Raytheon etc) have anything to say about it, the US congress I believe will not vote it down. Anyway, lets wait and see, September 9 isn't too far.
 
Bashira_taeli said:
Its hard not to believe that Obama doesn't want this war. If his statement of 2 days ago is anything to go by, he comes across as somewhat eager to launch those missiles. Even going as far as saying that he will not wait for the UN security council.

However I do agree that Obama has gone for a congressional vote just to share the onus of responsibility for the attack, however if AIPAC and the US defense contractors (Lockheed, Raytheon etc) have anything to say about it, the US congress I believe will not vote it down. Anyway, lets wait and see, September 9 isn't too far.
Click to expand...

You really should ask other PPers who live in the US to see if they agree with me. Barack Obama is the most isolationist, antiwar and domestic focused president this country has had in a while. Remember he voted against the Iraq war in 2003. His main focus has been Obamacare and domestic issues. Democrats tend to be antiwar in general, but Barack Obama has resisted for over a year the calls by the likes of McCain, Hillary Clinton as well as David Cameron to get more actively involved in Syria. If he wanted this war he would have intervened a year ago. The only reason he has to now is because he boxed himself into a corner with his red line statement. Now US credibility is at stake, which is why he has to do something, but he wants to CYA by making sure the Congress goes on record as supporting or not.

The reason he won't wait for the UN security council is the same reason China or Russia will not wait for the security council if they want to intervene somewhere the US doesn't want them to do so - because of the veto power.
 
These are the real warmongers IMO.

Saudis Try to Gather Support for a Strike

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: September 1, 2013


CAIRO — Saudi Arabia and the other oil-rich Persian Gulf monarchies on Sunday stepped up their efforts to drum up support for Western airstrikes against Syria.

With the Arab League meeting on Sunday evening for a second time to discuss responses to the Syrian crisis, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, broke the kingdom’s public silence on the subject at a news conference in Cairo on Sunday afternoon, urging other Arab nations to back the Syrian rebels with military action against the government of President Bashar al-Assad after a suspected chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds.

Saudi Arabia, its Gulf allies and Jordan have all pushed hard behind the scenes for Washington to lead strikes against Mr. Assad, whom they consider the most important regional ally of their greatest enemy, Iran. That pressure continued on Sunday, but until now the monarchies have refrained from publicly endorsing Western military action, presumably because the idea of Western intervention is overwhelmingly unpopular across the Arab world.

Several analysts said Sunday that President Obama had badly damaged American credibility in the Arab world by appearing to back down from airstrikes just hours before many Arab government expected them to begin.

“He is seen as feckless and weak, and this will give further rise to conspiracy theories that Obama doesn’t really want Assad out and it is all a big game,” said Salman Shaikh of the Brookings Doha Center. “Many Arab leaders already think that Obama’s word cannot be trusted — I am talking about his friends and allies — and I am afraid this will reinforce that belief.”

But along with a call to the Syrian rebels, Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday called the Saudi foreign minister. And with the prospect of a debate in the United States Congress looming, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states appear to have concluded they need to exert themselves further to provide regional Arab cover for a Western airstrike.

At an Arab League meeting last week, Saudi Arabia and its allies signed on to a more noncommittal statement holding Mr. Assad responsible for the use of chemical weapons but stopping short of endorsing any specific action in response; the resolution merely urged the United Nations Security Council to overcome its internal differences on Syria — an outcome that was extremely unlikely, given Russia’s strong support of Mr. Assad.

The Saudi foreign minister’s statement on Sunday, however, indicated that the Gulf countries were determined to push for stronger public support from the Arab world, even at the cost of angering their citizens and overcoming resistance from others in the region.

Egypt, once among Washington’s most reliable allies in the region, has led the opposition to any resolution supporting Western strikes, initially even refusing to blame the Assad government for the chemical weapons attack.

The new Egyptian government, installed by Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi after he ousted an elected president from the Muslim Brotherhood, has indicated that it fears the Islamist-dominated Syrian rebels more than it does the Assad government or its alliance with Iran. But the new Egyptian government is also beholden to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states for billions of dollars in critically-needed financial support.

Egyptian state news media indicated on Sunday that its government was prepared to accept a Saudi-backed resolution endorsing military action against Syria, with the compromise that the resolution also call for a “political solution” between the Assad government and the rebels. Last week, Egypt was also reluctant when it signed on to the weaker Saudi-backed resolution blaming the Assad government for the chemical weapons attack.

Saudi newspapers, meanwhile, covered Mr. Obama’s speech referring the military action to Congress as if the president were only redoubling his determination to strike Syria. “The most recent calamity changed matters from semi-silence to action,” the Saudi newspaper Al Riyahd declared. “America is the one that chooses any measures without taking permission from the Congress or the Security Council if it has reasons to support actions.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-syria-military-action.html?hp
Click to expand...
 
How a volatile Syria with infighting and Al-Qaeda presence is better than Assad?

The reason is that Al-Qaeda are not friends of Iran , but are they not also foes of West ?
 
So there are countries who dont have the guts to fight but are pressurizing others to fight on their behalf...
 
Saeed said:
Interest or not they are not taking part in Syria killings which is good. Interest can go back to their hole even 1 innocent life matter more than interests.
Click to expand...

Nice to see how everyone has become a pacifist all of a sudden but when its the ttp attacking pakistani civilians everyone wants the army to invade nwfp even getting american aid and logistics for air strikes
 
The beating of the drums of war against Syria

News:

The Al-Jazeerah correspondent in Lebanon said that more than 10 thousand Syrians had crossed over the border into Lebanon in the past 24 hours as a result of the anticipated attack upon Syria. This is whilst Jordanian officials have stated that the influx of a huge number of refugees into Jordan from Syria is posing a ‘great strain’ upon the ‘scarce’ water supplies just as it putting pressure upon power supplies in addition to increasing the costs of housing, wages and education.

Comment:

From here, from the land of the revolution of Ash-Shaam, it is necessary to make clear that these media outlets are beating the drums of war. They are the ones who have helped to drag Egypt in to chaos, they are the ones who are stoking flames in Tunisia, sedated the revolution in Yemen and the very same media who has been fabricating the reality about us here in Ash-Shaam. So now they have made the claim that thousands of Syrians have fled Syria because the West is planning to strike!

What is this fabrication and deception? It is as if Syria before this was peaceful and tranquil under the rule of its despot and that the people are now fleeing due to their fear of the western threats to the criminal regime in it. And no one has fled except for the state Shabeehah (murderous thugs) and their stooges along with those who would raise the slogans in support of the Russians. Has the world forgotten and especially its hired media outlets that we bury one hundred Shaheed on a daily basis? Including children and women who have committed to crime except for living under the oppressive rule of this tyranny!

Is the only problem the use of chemicals against us? Is that which is less than chemicals like the cluster and spatial bombs that fell only two weeks ago in the palace gardens in Halab or the Scud missiles or mass explosives or the torture and slaughtering of children all permissible? Or does the humanity of the disbelieving capitalist democratic west not awaken except when chemicals are used? And indeed even after its repetitive use which was exposed by those who plot against America and her agent in Syria?

The human rights that America, Britain and their stooges proclaim are truly evil and the words that come from their mouths used to fool and deceive us here in Ash-Shaam are evil. They are the ones who are killing us, they have not only given the greenest of green lights to the regime but have aided it by providing it with all the technology they need and all the information they require and the visit of the German head of intelligence to the regime is not far from our memories.

The western dirtiness has reached its full and maximum in respect to helping this wretched regime and this has been by exerting its efforts to direct all of the eyes of the world towards the military strike being as a result of the chemical attack in Ghoutah. This is to complete the diverting of the eyes from what is happening in all of the other provinces and in particular the city of Homs. This city which has suffered from the beginning of the revolution what it has suffered in terms of killing, arrests, homelessness and mass destruction whilst the people of ‘humanity’ in the West have not moved an inch and have remained in silence. Right now the criminal regime is exploiting the fact that the eyes are focused on the chemical situation and the western threats and it is readying itself for campaigns to raid the city and to increase its military operations. It is apparent that all of this will happen with the blessings of the chivalrous people in the western democratic states who only shed tears for those who are killed by chemicals alone!

Here in Ash-Shaam I hear and witness the indifference of the people of revolution in regards to this news because they are certain that the matter lies in Allah’s hands alone and whether the west strikes or does not strike that this regime has already fallen in their eyes and that nothing remains except for it be finished off by the sincere revolutionaries. However I would like to remind some who have weakness inside themselves that Allah does not change a people until they change that which is within them. Therefore this regime will never fall unless it is by the hands that have Tawakkul (reliance) upon Allah alone and this land will never attain any value unless it is announced as the Khilafah upon the path of the Prophethood, which will be soon by the permission of Allah.

Written and prepared for the radio of the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir

Hisham Al-Baba, head of the media office of Hizb ut Tahrir in the Wilayah of Syria.
 
KB-24 said:
What is this fabrication and deception? It is as if Syria before this was peaceful and tranquil under the rule of its despot and that the people are now fleeing due to their fear of the western threats to the criminal regime in it. And no one has fled except for the state Shabeehah (murderous thugs) and their stooges along with those who would raise the slogans in support of the Russians.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately this is wrong

Refugees fleeing Syria comprise all sorts, from Alawi Assad supporters to anti-Assad Sunnis.

Before the armed uprising, Syria was not perfect, but it was far more stable than Iraq or Lebanon, of course you had the typical things that come with a police dictatorship, but life was peaceful for most people.
 
Looks like military strikes will be approved from Congress as it stands after Obama wins the support of key figures such as John Boehner and Eric Cantor.

Jonathan Marcus of the BBC raises some interesting points about the potential attacks. Some elements of the Syrian chemical weapons complex may be buried underground but large parts of it can easily be seen on satellite images.

Much of it is reasonably close to populated areas - and this is the problem.

Attacking such sites with regular explosive bombs might well wreak considerable damage but it could also open up chemical weapons stocks to the air, disperse them over a large area, and potentially cause large numbers of civilian casualties.
 
Chuck Hagel carrying on the rich tradition of US Sec of Defense. The previous gave similar rhetoric about the presence of WMDs in Iraq.
 
Why these politicians use non english words to confuse people.Kerry could have easily said that islamic scholars.
 
Saeed said:
Why these politicians use non english words to confuse people.Kerry could have easily said that islamic scholars.
Click to expand...

Mullah has negative connotations....evil bearded men. Kerry would use it for the Iranians but not for the Al Qaeeda fighters in Syria.
 
Kerry: If we dont take action our interests will be at risk, our ally Israel will be at risk.

AND THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE!
 
He is saying that if Al-Assad keep doing then it will expand to israel and jordan well what will happen if rebels hijacked by alqeada win this war.
 
Argument of the night comes from the lady senator with hipster glasses.

"Iran will view US as 'paper tiger' if it fails to act on Syria"

:bow:
 
Nothing but good old fear mongering this. Each senator trying to up the other.

So far nothing to suggest that majority of US public is against this war.
 
Sen Rubia: "Assad is a supporter of Al Qaeda, the same Al Qaeda that killed our men and women in Iraq."

Yes senator, the same Al Qaeeda you now are supporting in Syria.
 
Another gem.

Sen Rubio: "No strike means Iran will get the bomb then turkey will get the bomb, Saudi will get bomb & maybe even Egypt."
 
Re: Syrian Civil War

Abid Z said:
I read this the other day. Its a great analysis by a fantastic writer. Have you read The Great War for Civilisation?
Click to expand...

He is an excellent writer. I haven't read the book but I expect its pretty impressive.
 
MR__KHAN__JI said:
He is an excellent writer. I haven't read the book but I expect its pretty impressive.
Click to expand...

Khan_Ji its more than impressive, if you read no other book you must read this if you follow his articles. It is by far one of the most moving books that have ever been written by somebody who has deep insight into the region. Get past the first chapter on his dad ..and move on to interviews with Osama bin laden onwards..it kind of sucks you in by the time you are on the chapters of Iran and Algeria it is truly harrowing all the more coz of its first hand accounts. its long, but you wont be able to put it down.

It puts the current situation in Syria very much in perspective as its a sense of Deja vu from where the book ended in 2003 Iraq invasion.
 
pakistanalltheway said:
Mods i request you to remove this video because every time i click on this thread the video starts automatically .
Click to expand...

Yeah its annoying. Have to mute everytime i am in this thread.

Also wanted to post this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324202304579051280341316034

Highlighting what I think are important points:

Pentagon planners were instructed not to offer strike options that could help drive Mr. Assad from power: "The big concern is the wrong groups in the opposition would be able to take advantage of it," a senior military officer said. The CIA declined to comment.

The White House wants to strengthen the opposition but doesn't want it to prevail, according to people who attended closed-door briefings by top administration officials over the past week. The administration doesn't want U.S. airstrikes, for example, tipping the balance of the conflict because it fears Islamists will fill the void if the Assad regime falls, according to briefing participants, which included lawmakers and their aides.
Click to expand...

Some congressional officials said they were concerned the administration was edging closer to an approach privately advocated by Israel. Israeli officials have told their American counterparts they would be happy to see its enemies Iran, the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah and al Qaeda militants fight until they are weakened, giving moderate rebel forces a chance to play a bigger role in Syria's future.
Click to expand...
 
Bashira_taeli said:
Sen Rubia: "Assad is a supporter of Al Qaeda, the same Al Qaeda that killed our men and women in Iraq."

Yes senator, the same Al Qaeeda you now are supporting in Syria.
Click to expand...

Wth....
:facepalm:
You guys are supporting Al Qaeda while Assad is fighting against them.
 
Last edited:
<iframe frameborder="0" width="480" height="270" src="http://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x1435qy"></iframe><br /><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1435qy_evidence-syrian-rebels-used-chemical-weapons_news" target="_blank">Evidence_ Syrian Rebels used Chemical Weapons</a> <i>by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/awaztoday101" target="_blank">awaztoday101</a></i>

Mods please remove the earlier video and the post pakistanalltheway replied on (as now 2 videos running). If you think that video is ok for the thread new video is posted which does not auto play.

Sorry for the inconvenience to the fellow PPers.
 
Syrian Civil War

Bashira_taeli said:
Nothing but good old fear mongering this. Each senator trying to up the other.

So far nothing to suggest that majority of US public is against this war.
Click to expand...

Here are some opinions collected by the Washington Post.

On Syria, Obama faces a skeptical public

Chris Cillizza breaks down the three things we learned from today's briefings and hearings on potential U.S. military action in Syria. (/)
By David A. Fahrenthold and Paul Kane, Published: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 03, 8:54 PM ET
Aa
WEST HARTFORD, Conn. — President Obama has turned the question of whether to strike Syria into an extraordinary national sales job — seeking to convince skeptics in Congress and among the public that military action would be worth the risk.

It does not seem to be selling well. That’s the takeaway from the most recent national polling and the response from voters nationwide.

“I don’t think it’s the right time and the right place for our country to make a unilateral strike,” Tom Farrell of West Hartford told Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.) at a special meeting that Larson called here on Labor Day.

Farrell said he asked himself if U.S. missiles would improve the situation in Syria. And he thought not. “We are not trying to help the Syrian people. We are trying to make a point,” he said.

This is the debate the president asked for. Normally, Tom Farrell of West Hartford would not have a role in a real-time decision to use American military force. Neither, for that matter, does his congressman.

Now, they do.

On Saturday, Obama asked for congressional approval to punish Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons. By extension, he invited the American public into the decision as well, as lawmakers turned to their constituents for guidance and political cover.

What they’ve found — from conservative corners of Tennessee to this liberal, comfortable Connecticut suburb — is that many voters deeply oppose the idea of a strike.

In meetings with lawmakers, voters gamely tried to tackle the kind of problem usually reserved for situation rooms in Washington. Cops tried to apply the logic of police work to the situation in Syria. Teachers applied the lessons of classroom discipline. Regular people thought through the same ugly chains of cause and effect that presidential advisers had.

They wound up with the same bad options. Afterward, some decided that a strike was worth the cost. But many saw it the other way.

“The notion that we can just go in and strike — and get out quickly — just seems not borne out by our history,” said Margaret Levy, 68, a lawyer from West Hartford.

On Tuesday, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll showed significant opposition to a missile strike in Syria, underscoring the skepticism Obama’s sales pitch must overcome. In all, 59 percent of Americans oppose the idea. The proposal was opposed by a majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans. Among political independents, two-thirds said no. Notably, Obama’s position on the matter appears not to be a factor driving support or opposition.

In some places, lawmakers didn’t even need to call meetings to hear voters’ thoughts about Syria. The opinions came to them.

Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.)wrote on Twitter that constituents who had contacted his office had opposed intervention, 523 to 4. Rep. Tim Griffin (R-Ark.) said the count in his office was 75 to 0.

In Brownsville, Tex., Rep. Filemon Vela (D)stopped at a liquor store, looking for a bottle of Merlot.

“Here’s my take,” said Joe Gonzalez, 57, a store employee who cornered Vela in the aisles. It was a long take. Gonzalez worried that the price of oil would rise if a strike on Syria further unsettled the Middle East. He worried that the United States would not be acting with strong allies. He worried about France: “We only have support from France. But France is a small country.”

And besides, Gonzalez said, “those people have been fighting for thousands of years — Syrians, Egyptians, Libyans. They’re going to keep on fighting. It’s a religious war; why get involved?”

Vela listened. But he says he’s undecided about how to vote.

The issue also bubbled up, unbidden, at town hall meetings called to discuss other issues. Such as the farm bill. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) and Rep. Stephen Lee Fincher (R) had come to Trenton, Tenn., to talk to farmers about the legislation.

That agenda lasted for three questions.

Then: “What about Syria? What about Syria?” asked Buddy Sorrells, 58, whose 4,000-acre farm produces corn, cattle, soybeans and wheat.

“I’m skeptical” about the possible strikes, said Alexander, an establishment conservative who supported the Iraq war. There were nods of approval. Alexander laid out the chain of possible consequences. There could be retaliation against Israel. Which might bring retaliation from the United States. And where would it go from there? Alexander said he was tired of seeing Tennessee soldiers depart for Middle Eastern wars.

Afterward, Sorrells said he was unconvinced.

“They ought to do something,” he said. Any chemical attack meant a line had been crossed. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had to face consequences. “They ought to just go and assassinate Assad.”

Then Sorrells paused. Thinking. He realized his dilemma.

“But what do we get then” as the leader of Syria? “I don’t know the answer,” he said, finally.

More than 600 miles away in small-town Corning, Iowa, Rep. Tom Latham (R) was already leaning toward voting “no.” On Tuesday, in two meetings with constituents, he heard little to change his mind.

Questions in those meetings wandered widely — from Syria to Obamacare to queries about why teachers no longer teach cursive writing, and whether there is still gold in Fort Knox.

But along the way, several constituents shared their worries about Syria. Why is the United States seemingly taking on the task alone?

“I was of the opinion that the U.N. was supposed to settle these things,” said an older woman at the library in Corning. “What happened to the U.N.?”

“We need some friends there with us,” a man agreed.

In West Hartford on Monday, Larson had called a meeting to talk about Syria. Despite the short notice, more than 200 people showed up, filling the city council chamber and spilling into the halls.

The discussion lasted the allotted two hours and then some more. Many talked back from the audience, disagreeing without shouting. The meeting went on for so long that Larson warned that he couldn’t go much longer without a bathroom break: “I’m 65 years old and didn’t take my Flomax this morning. So I may have to step out momentarily.”

A number of people spoke in favor of military strikes. Some were natives of Syria who said that an attack might prevent more deaths there.

For others, the logic had as much to do with North Korea and Iran as with Syria.

“If we let ourselves not do anything at this point, we will have no credibility” if those countries use prohibited weapons, said Roger Bunker, 72, a retired lawyer from Bloomfield, Conn. Bunker allowed that the outcome of a strike on Syria was hard to predict.

But, he said, “I think we know what the consequences are if we don’t do anything. And that’s more gas.”

Some speakers — suddenly invited into one of the hardest problems in world politics — tried applying lessons from their lives. A retired cop, for instance, said he had found there were bad guys you could afford to leave alone and bad guys you couldn’t. Assad was the latter, he said: “I know there are situations when I can’t just walk away.”

John Minze, 38, a consultant from West Hartford, got to the microphone and tried to puzzle out the problem aloud. He said he opposes military action. But then, he had a thought. He asked Larson: What if, instead of shooting cruise missiles at Syria, the United States simply tried to kill Assad?

“Who takes over?” a man in the crowd asked.

“Well, that’s a problem,” Minze said, still at the mike. Thinking. He was at a loss again. “That’s why I’m against military intervention.”

After various people had spoken, Larson said he was proud of them for talking so thoughtfully about a difficult issue.

“Listen,” he said, “it’s a democracy.”

“Republic!” said somebody toward the front of the group.

This was highbrow heckling, but the person had a point. In a pure democracy, the people would decide. In this case, the job falls to their representatives.

In other words, the choice is up to Larson.

Kane reported from Trenton, Tenn. Emily Heil in Iowa and Ed O’Keefe in Washington contributed to this report.

Show Comments (50)
THE POST MOST: POLITICS

http://m.washingtonpost.com/politic...-11e3-a100-66fa8fd9a50c_story.html?tid=HP_top
Click to expand...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
Congress look likely to authorise US intervention. If we are to analyse this, it seems Obama is set to intervene in Syria for four main reasons IMO:

1) Pressure from Israel to attack a long-standing rival in the region.

2) Pressure from allies such as Saudi Arabia and the other oil-rich Gulf states who all see Syria as an ally of their common enemy Iran.

3) To weaken Iran and leave it totally isolated in the region, strengthening the West's hand at nuclear weapons negotiations.

4) That ridiculous 'red line' speech that Obama made has essentially been spinned as a promise of intervention if chemical weapons were used. Backing down now would be a humiliating u-turn and loss of credibility for Obama after that speech.
 
"Operation Just the Tip"

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/tsVW9pjjA7g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:
If we are to analyse this
Click to expand...

What is there to analyse? The political circus is just a freak show to further condition the masses in to fooling them this is all in the name of doing good, the US has a moral obligation and the rest of the BS. The terrorism against the Muslim world is a very old plan going back to before 911. It doesn't matter who the puppet on the string is , a black man called O'Bama or a redneck called Bush, these jokers don't make any decisions.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9RC1Mepk_Sw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
saeedhk said:
Wth....
:facepalm:
You guys are supporting Al Qaeda while Assad is fighting against them.
Click to expand...

assad is fighting with al qaeda, his own hezb ul shayateen version
Assad has butchered thousands of innocents and thrust them in refugee camps all in the name of alawaite supremacy and the backing of 'hezbollah' dogs and terrorists
 
US Senate committee backs use of force

A US Senate panel has approved the use of military force in Syria, in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack.

By 10-7, the Committee on Foreign Relations moved the measure to a full Senate vote, expected next week.

The proposal allows the use of force in Syria for 60 days with the possibility to extend it for 30 days. It prevents the use of US troops on the ground...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23967190
Click to expand...

The ten senators who backed the military offensive in Syria.

BTWzIP4IAAA0cYo.jpg


The seven who voted against are R. Paul, T. Udall, C. Murphy, J. Risch, M. Rubio, R. Johnson and J. Barrasso
 
chacha kashmiri said:
assad is fighting with al qaeda, his own hezb ul shayateen version
Assad has butchered thousands of innocents and thrust them in refugee camps all in the name of alawaite supremacy and the backing of 'hezbollah' dogs and terrorists
Click to expand...

You are out of touch with reality.Assad has been in power from 2001,If he hated sunnis so much,how come he did not start killing sunnis from 2001??If there were no foreign backed rebels,there would not be any or very few killings just like Bahrain.If the rebels were so called revolutionaries,they would not be beheading Christian priests.
 
I don't think that the US will attack.

I heard on BBC Radio 4 this morning that opinion against US strikes among some the of Congressmens' focus groups was running at 95%.

Congress is GOP-dominated now and those Reps will vote down any motion to attack, just as an excuse to cripple Obama's Presidency. It's quite surprising how many hawks of the "Bush 43" years are, if not evolving into doves, are turning isolationist again.
 
saeedhk said:
You are out of touch with reality.Assad has been in power from 2001,If he hated sunnis so much,how come he did not start killing sunnis from 2001??If there were no foreign backed rebels,there would not be any or very few killings just like Bahrain.If the rebels were so called revolutionaries,they would not be beheading Christian priests.
Click to expand...

The most known 'revolutionary' of the 21st century is 'che' a person who witnessed and ordered the murder of thousands of prisoners in havana
As for the support and protection of christians, hezbollah do certainly not provide that in lebanon and have even been accused of targetting them
and neither did hafez assad

If there were no 'foriegn backed' rebels france would never have broken free from nazi rule in nazi germany

As for the assads not killing anyone before the rebellion, you really need to read up on history...



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/wTgntyJJkZ0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
That's his father though. I don't see why Bashar Assad needs to pay for crimes of his father. Though obviously he's done a lot of wrong as well and needs to step down, but given the competition - FSA in this case - he's easily the better option.
 
chacha kashmiri said:
The most known 'revolutionary' of the 21st century is 'che' a person who witnessed and ordered the murder of thousands of prisoners in havana
As for the support and protection of christians, hezbollah do certainly not provide that in lebanon and have even been accused of targetting them
and neither did hafez assad

If there were no 'foriegn backed' rebels france would never have broken free from nazi rule in nazi germany

As for the assads not killing anyone before the rebellion, you really need to read up on history...
Click to expand...

The same old prejudiced, sectarian drivel from you.

Christians in Lebanon have very cordial relations with Hezbollah. The largest christian political party of Lebanon, the FPM is an ally of Hizbollah.

The former Christian president of Lebanon, Emile Lahoud was the biggest supporter of Hizbollah.

SPIEGEL: Please explain your relationship to Hezbollah. What do you think of Hassan Nasrallah?

Lahoud: Hezbollah enjoys utmost prestige in Lebanon, because it freed our country. All over the Arab world you hear: Hezbollah maintains Arab honor, and even though it (Hezbollah) is very small, it stands up to Israel. And of course Nasrallah has my respect.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...oud-hezbollah-freed-our-country-a-428391.html
Click to expand...


Give this a read as well.

In Hezbollah stronghold, Lebanese Christians find respect, stability


In a Christian home in a Shiite suburb of Beirut, images of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah share mantel and wall space with the Virgin Mary.

...The face of the revered Shiite militant leader appears on posters, a calendar, and in several photographs nestled amid those of Christian homeowner Randa Gholam's family members. Mr. Nasrallah is, Ms. Gholam asserts amid a string of superlatives, “a gift from God.”...
Click to expand...

...Recently, when the Shiite holiday of Ashura was approaching, the streets were choked with residents shopping and passing out sweets and blanketed with black banners commemorating the martyrdom of Hussein Ali. But Christians live openly here, and they describe Hezbollah as a tolerant group that has steadfastly supported their presence, even sending Christmas cards to Christian neighbors like Gholam....
Click to expand...
....Gholam, who throws a party every year in honor of Nasrallah’s birthday and places a photo of him in her Christmas tree, is certainly an anomaly. But other Christian families also speak approvingly of their life under Hezbollah, especially when compared to its predecessor, Amal, which they say forced many Christian residents to sell their homes. In contrast, Hezbollah extended financial support to the Christian families when Dahiyeh needed rebuilding after the civil war and the 2006 war with Israel.

Rony Khoury, a Maronite Christian who was born in Harat Hreik and still lives in the same apartment, says he feels comfortable drinking alcohol on his front porch, in full view of members of Hezbollah, and his wife feels no pressure to don a head scarf or follow other rules governing Muslim women's attire. They have property in a predominantly Christian area of Beirut, but have no desire to move.

“After Hezbollah came, we didn’t have any worries,” Mr. Khoury says, citing safe streets. "The security is No. 1 in the world. I leave my car open, I forget something outside…. It's very safe now, under Hezbollah."...
Click to expand...

...Both Khoury and Gholam, as well as neighborhood Shiites who dropped by their homes, said there are far more issues with Sunnis.

"Shiite extremists like Hezbollah, they come to our church" as a show of support, says Khoury. "But Sunni extremists, like Salafis, they kill me, they kill you."...
Click to expand...

Complete article of Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...ld-Lebanese-Christians-find-respect-stability
Click to expand...
 
Syrian Rebel admits chemical weapons use

Damascus: A video of an opposition rebel militant in Syria has emerged in which he apparently confesses the use of chemical weapons in order to follow Osama Bin Laden’s mantra of killing women and children.

The individual in the clip, Nadeem Baloosh, is a member of an insurgent group called Riyadh Al Abdeen, which is active in the Latakia area of Syria.

Baloosh speaks of “chemicals which produce lethal and deadly gases that I possess,” before going on to state, “We decided to harm them through their women and kids.”

Baloosh ponders if it is acceptable to harm women and children before quoting the Koran, “Fight them as they fight you. ” He goes on to quote Osama Bin Laden (whom other rebel groups have openly praised).

“We’ll kill their women and children like Sheikh Osama Bin Laden said – “until they cease killing our women and kids,” he states.

Baloosh goes on to talk about the Syrian Army approaching the area where his rebel group was located, before stating, “So we had the idea that this weapon was very powerful and effective to repel them, we announced if they approached one meter, everything is permitted.”

“We will strike them in their homes, we will turn their day into night and their night into day,” adds Baloosh.

The footage adds to the increasing weight of evidence that suggests US-backed rebels possess and have used chemical weapons on more than one occasion, although such reports have been habitually downplayed by the mainstream media.

Earlier today Russia announced that it had compiled a 100 page report proving opposition rebels “were behind a deadly sarin gas attack in an Aleppo suburb earlier this year.”

Carla Del Ponte, the leading member of the UN inquiry into the attack, which happened in March, told Swiss TV that there existed “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof” that rebels were responsible for the atrocity.

As we highlighted last week, Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta admitted to a reporter that they were responsible for last month’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

Despite the fact that the report was written by credible Associated Press and BBC correspondent Dale Gavlak, it has received virtually zero mainstream attention.

In addition, leaked phone conversations that emerged earlier this year between two members of the Free Syrian Army contain details of a plan to carry out a chemical weapons attack capable of impacting an area the size of one kilometer. Footage was also leaked showing opposition militants testing what appeared to be nerve agents on laboratory rabbits.

There are also multiple other videos which apparently show US-backed rebels preparing and using chemical weapons.

Source:http://www.saach.tv/2013/09/06/syrian-rebel-admits-using-chemical-weapons/#sthash.Vgyzk9JW.dpuf
 
chacha kashmiri said:
The most known 'revolutionary' of the 21st century is 'che' a person who witnessed and ordered the murder of thousands of prisoners in havana
As for the support and protection of christians, hezbollah do certainly not provide that in lebanon and have even been accused of targetting them
and neither did hafez assad

If there were no 'foriegn backed' rebels france would never have broken free from nazi rule in nazi germany

As for the assads not killing anyone before the rebellion, you really need to read up on history...



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/wTgntyJJkZ0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Click to expand...
Again,totally irrelevant response from you.I was talking about Bashar Al Assad not his father.This video is about his father.
 
Deaths of Syria: http://syria.herokuapp.com/
___________________________________________________________________________



The Anonymous guide to the Syrian Revolution. #OpSyria

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Hello citizens of the world, we are Anonymous.
For three years we have witnessed the slaughter and pain across Syria inflicted by the brutal Assad regime. It has come to our attention that although there is an abundant amount of information available many outside of Syria refuse to see it or acknowledge it's existence. Among the people who knowingly deceive the world with lies are certain entities such as @Anon_Central and the dozen Anons hiding within this shared account and it's edgy "anti-imperialist" following. For this reason we are releasing this guide to help you the ordinary citzen understand the Syrian revolution and what it truly is. You are free to stand against intervention, not the Truth.


How/why the uprising/revolution began



Influenced by the Arab Spring that swept the Middle East in 2011, anti-regime protests broke out in the southern province of Dar'a in March 2011 after a group of schoolboys who scrawled anti-government graffiti on walls; were jailed without trial for several days and subsequently released with major signs of torture; This sparked Peaceful Protests calling for the repeal of the restrictive Emergency Law allowing arrests without charge, the legalization of political parties, and the removal of corrupt local officials. Since then peaceful demonstrations and unrest have spread to nearly every city in Syria. Eventhough the Assad Regime has responded to unrest with a mix of concessions - including the repeal of the 'Emergency Law' and approving new laws which permit new political parties and liberalizing local and national elections - granted for every act of good will broadcasted by the Assad regime it's brutal mass arrest campaign against activists and use of force (Lethal & Non-Lethal) of peaceful demonstrations overshadowed any and all reform proposed by the regime. Understandably, the regime's response failed to meet opposition demands for President Assad to step down, and the regime's ongoing security operations to quell unrest and widespread armed opposition activity have led to an all out war between government forces and opposition.


Who is the Assad Regime?
Leader: Bashar Al'Assad, ie: Duck, Giraffe, Lion
Brutal 40 year old Dictatorship
Alliances: Iran, Hezbollah, Russia, China


Who are the FSA?
FSA is short for Free Syrian Army
Who are they?: Syrian nationals made up of former SAA defectors and ordinary citizens.
Alliances: US, , West, Qatar, KSA, 3rd party radicals

Who are the radicals involved in this conflict?
Al-Qaeda & branch offs, Hezbollah.


Are all Syrian Rebels Radical Islamist/Jihadist?

No, The Syrian conflict began as a secular revolt against autocracy. Yet as the conflict protracts, a radical Islamist dynamic has emerged within the opposition. There is a significant jihadist presence inside Syria, and this presence within the opposition galvanizes Assad’s support base. Assad has used the threat of jihadists within the opposition to build support for the regime; It has also served to discourage middle and upper class Sunnis from joining the opposition. Externally, Russian and Iranian leadership have consistently pointed to the presence of radical Islamist as a critical rationale for their support of the Assad regime. While U.S. and E.U. leadership have pointed to the presence of radical islamists as a critical rationale for not arming the opposition. Compared to uprisings in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia, the opposition in Syria faces a much greater threat of jihadist infiltration. Many jihadi elements now operating in Syria are already familiar with the terrain, having been sponsored and allowed to roam within Syria by the Assad regime for over 30 years. Most notable was this alliance during the Iraq / American war; where it was reported many insurgents & arms were surfacing from towns along the Syria/Iraq border. These same jihadi extremists turned against their former regime allies in 2011 and are now cooperating with local jihadists. Note: Moderate political Islam is not incompatible with democracy. However, ultraconservative Sunni Islamists, known as Salafists, envision a new world order modeled on early Islam that poses a significant threat to both democracy and the notion of statehood. Salafi-jihadists are those who commit to violent means to bring about the Salafi vision regardless of what the rest of the opposition may have in mind.

What about foreigners fighting in Syria, Is Al-Qaeda assisting the opposition forces?
Yes to some extent media both western and pro regime tend to exaggerate reports of their influence and/or presence, small al-Qaeda affiliated networks are operating in the country, including elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Fatah al-Islam, ISIS, Al-Nustra, and Jordanian Salafi-jihadists.

Function: Special forces, operational support, trainers and bomb makers,
Purpose: Attempting to capitalize on the instability in Syria and expand their influence in the region.

What is the main goal of the revolution?
To liberate Syria from the Assad regime and establish a peaceful democratic state.

UNDERSTANDING SYRIA’S OPPOSITION (via http://beta.syriadeeply.org/the-rebels/ ):

A Fragmented Set of Would-be Leaders
As the revolution morphed from peaceful protests into civil war, it was hard to identify a strong, credible alternative to President Bashar al Assad. That’s been a major obstacle to ending the fight, through any negotiated or enforced transition to a democratic Syria.
More than 20 months into Syria’s uprising a unified opposition coalition has begun to emerge. A National Coalition of opposition leaders took shape at a November meeting in Doha and took Cairo as its base. This latest grouping of Assad opponents has gained recognition from key European countries and regional powers, in hopes they can capably manage an end to the fight and a political transition.
Why did it take so long for a strong opposition to coalesce? The voices opposed to Assad have fractures and frictions among themselves – political and military groups with conflicting values and visions for a future Syria.
The holdup was also a function of Syria’s peculiar politics. Over more than four decades of Assad family rule, political life in Syria has been severely restricted. Opponents of the regime were regularly harassed, jailed, killed or forced into exile. Over time, that weakened the few political parties that dared to challenge the Assad regime.

Revolution from the Ground Up
After the people in Daraa took to the streets in March 2011 they quickly formed grassroots committees to guide the demonstrations and handle the humanitarian needs of the injured and displaced. The process was replicated across the country, creating a diverse network of local groups leading the opposition against President Bashar Al Assad.
That left the revolution without a clear or coordinated representative as protests continued to bubble up from the ground. They were Syrians raising their voices, many of them for the first time, and they operated without a single leader or central command.

No Influential Leader Means Power to the Armed Militants
As of now, no single group represents the Syrian revolution with enough influence on the ground to negotiate and enforce a ceasefire. Western countries hope the Syrian National Coalition can amass enough clout to set up an effective transitional government, but for now what exist is a panorama of players, each with some influence over the situation.
The opposition itself is divided into political groups and military forces, each with a different set of demands and a unique vision for what should happen next. In theory, they’ll need to work together in order to forge a future free Syria.
But as the war drags on analysts say that it’s the brigades fighting the Assad regime who gain greater influence. Among those brigades, it’s extremist militant groups like Jabhat al Nusra who've emerged as the most powerful – they have better weapons, wealth, and organizational infrastructure than more moderate Muslim fighters. That’s why analysts fear Syria’s war is radicalizing the country; jihadi groups represent a minority view in Syria, but they’re gaining more power through the fight.

International response to Syria
In favor of the Regime: Russia & China are selling weapons and vehicles to the regime, Iran is providing intelligence and troops. And Hezbollah is providing more men for the Assad regimes military.
What will these nations gain/benefit/profit?
regional dominance over Syria's Gas Pipes and a buffer zone between Israel and Iran.

In favor of the Opposition: US, France, Germany, all are providing some intelligence and very limited arms; Qatar, KSA are sponsoring certain rebel factions.
What will these nations gain/benefit/profit?
regional dominance over Syria's Gas Pipes and a gateway to Iran.




Syrian Tragedy

Syrian revolution death statistics and database (link): http://syrianshuhada.com/?lang=en

Documenting sexual violence in Syria (link): https://womenundersiegesyria.crowdmap.com/main

How many civilians have died so far?
Children..7646
Women...7933 martyrs 44% died from bomb attacks, 14% sniper, 3% beaten/stabbed
Men..71706

Regime Deaths: Unavailable


Rebel Deaths: Unavailable





Journos
Missing: Austin Tice, Marie Colvin, James Foley, Anthony Shadid
Dead:(unavailable, but it's many)

Weapons Found/Used in the Conflict-
http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/2012/10/npr-interview-variety-of-weapons.html

The DIY Weapons Of The Syrian Opposition- http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-diy-weapons-of-syrian-opposition.html


>Extra Reading<

So, before March 15, 2011? going back how long? Here's a starter, from 2003: The "Daraya Youth" group, consisting then of 25 men and 25 women studying nonviolence and civic work weekly, initiated a litter clean-up campaign in Daraya, and an anti-bribery campaign, and tried to open a public library. The library, Subul al-Salam (Paths of Peace) was shut down by mukhabarat after 4 days. When they all marched silently (without holding up pics of bashar) against the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003, they were hunted down and arbitrarily arrested for this display of freedom of opinion and assembly. Eighteen of the men were arbitrarily (without due process) arrested on May 3, 2003, including now-rev luminaries Yahya Shurbaji, Mohammad Said Kholani, and Osama Nassar; many of the women were taken in for interrogation and humiliation and then released.
(Read all about it here:http://mashallahnews.com/?p=5938)
In 2005, 250 signatories signed the historical Damascus Declaration, calling for "gradual nonviolent democratic reform in Syria," a first historical unification of most major opposition groups and independent dissidents. After the DD formed its Executive Council in Dec 2007, throughout 2008, its exec officers who were inside Syria (twelve of them, i believe) were hunted down and arrested. Artist Talal Abo Dan, for example, had his whole studio demolished, his paintings destroyed or confiscated. There's the Syrian Media Center for Freedom of Expression; they've always been harassed.There's the Committee for the Defense of Democratic Freedoms, which was a student group that formed in 2001 and had spread to four universities, harassed and persecuted.
But those last two i don't have all the details off the top of my head. Tamer Awwam, the citizen journo who died a few months ago, told me he had been a student-founder of the Committee for the Defense of Democratic Freedoms (I hope I'm getting the name right; it's in my notes somewhere. You need to do your own research and doublecheck on all of this, because i'm going from memory for most of it). I wouldn't put it past Tamer (allah yerhamo nonetheless, but he was kind of a jerk) to give himself more credit than due, but then again it might be right that he was a founder, not just a member.
Jiwan Ayo was in it too. I did a lot of series of tweets on "Roots of the Revolution" or "Seeds of the Revolution" wayyyyy back during the first year. First months, even. I don't suppose one could find those. I put in a lot of things thinking I was making a record, things i don't know that i put in notes anywhere else, only to realize later that Twitter doesnt save past a certain date! Can somebody organize this information and out it in the notes? Activities met with violence pre-uprising illustrate the long history of fascism at the hands of the Assad clan.
Click to expand...

http://pastebin.com/q98TVeDD
 
G20 summit ends without much agreement from the opposing sides.

On a side note - what would a post-Assad Syria look like ? I think it is easier to predict considering what we've seen in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and other countries.

We could see a weak, democratically-elected, multi-sectarian/ethnic coalition government, and an insurgency from the minority sect. We've seen this in Iraq, where the coalition government is in regular turmoil and there is a Sunni insurgency, backed by the Saudis (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm).

Syria would probably face an Iran/Hezbollah backed insurgency.

Question is whether Syrians would want a post-Assad democratic future that would be somewhat unstable, or stability under Assad, but with the brutality of regime ?
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/TqtCOxeGAHE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Few people were asking for summaries/history of Syrian conflict - well here is one by Dan Snow. It is very fair and balanced, an hour long. Goes back in time and covers today's conflict.
 
WSJ's report on the composition of Syrian rebels.

The Obama Quandary: Who Are Syria's Rebels?

<iframe frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="512" height="288" src="http://live.wsj.com/public/page/embed-552FB0A6_83BF_4031_B4BC_6B39B5C8A41B.html"></iframe>
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hitman
Turkey’s Erdogan calls for Islamic alliance against Israel’s ‘threat of expansionism’
Replies
9
Views
117
BouncerGuy
B
The Bald Eagle
Pot calling the kettle black? BJP leader likens Mamata Banerjee to Kim Jong Un: 'Can't tolerate opposition'
Replies
45
Views
439
Hitman
Hitman
S
[VIDEOS] Right-wing thugs turn on immigrant populations in UK in the aftermath of Southport killings
7 8 9
Replies
655
Views
10K
DeadlyVenom
D
R
Is America really to be blamed for all the issues in Middle East and rising Islamophobia?
Replies
7
Views
196
Cricket Warrior
C
B
[VIDEOS] India, Pakistan ask students to 'stay indoors' amid mob violence in Kyrgyzstan
2
Replies
81
Views
1K
PakLFC
P
Back
Top