Text 10225, 349 rader
Skriven 2013-09-11 20:34:01 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 10220 av alexander koryagin (2:5020/2140.2)
Ärende: Putin Blinks
====================
Hello Alexander,

 LL>>> President Barack Obama wins... Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad
 LL>>> wins... Russian President Vladimir Putin wins... The French win...

 WD>> The Syrian people lose and their misery continues while the
 WD>> aforementioned individuals congratulate themselves.

AK>The civil war in Syria is the product of the US and Europe.

The current civil war, as the previous dictator of Syria had his
own civil war to contend with.  Is it just "the product of the US
and Europe" as you suggest?  No.  It is the product of a number
of different factions, including factions within the US and Europe.
For example, there are terror groups (including elements of al-Qaeda)
that are active within Syria.  Who is sponsoring those terror groups?
Is Iran sending help to Hezbollah?  Is the Syrian regime doing the
same?  And what about Hamas?  I highly doubt that either the US
or Europe is helping Hezbollah or Hamas.  Turkey is certainly sending
help to factions that are fighting against the Syrian regime.  So are
several Gulf states.  So please.  Do not claim that only the US and
Europe are the causes of strife within Syria.

AK>Actually, it was inevitable after NATO's operation in Libya.

Nothing is inevitable in the world of politics (and war).
Except that all wars end.  Eventually.  Even if a war lasts
a hundred (or more) years.

The Domino Effect is a theory that has been soundly disproven.  For
a long time, Americans were led to believe that war must continue
in Vietnam, for as long as necessary to win, else the next country
would fall, and then the next, and the next, and the next, etc.
Americans learned, the hard way, that they were lied to by their
leaders.  So we finally withdrew from Vietnam.

And then we became a Paper Tiger.  Until we forgot our past lesson,
and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.  And now we are threatening to do
it again, only this time in Syria.

Sometimes Americans have shit for brains.

AK>Everything is very clear.

Nothing is real.
And nothing to get hungabout.
Strawberry Fields for eggers.

AK>After the NATO's operation in Libya the Syrian opposition decided
AK>to repeat that a cheap success and remove the Syrian authority by
AK>strange hands.

The hands of war are known only too well.  Especially in that part
of the world.  Remember, Syria is a rough neighborhood.  And Syria's
neighbors can be just as rough, if not rougher.  Syria has been broken
into at least three major parts as a result of the current civil war -
a Sunni section, a Kurdish section, and a Shiite (Alawite) section.
The majority of the Syrian population is Sunni, a small minority
of the Syrian population is Kurdish, and an even smaller minority
is Shiite (Alawite).  Alawites are akin to being heretics of the
Shiite faction of Islam.  Heretics of heritics.  Bashar al-Assad
is a (Shi'a) Muslim of the Alawite sect.  A heretic in the eyes
of most Muslims, including most Muslims within Syria.

AK>It is easy -- you spill blood and NATO forces will do all
AK>the dirty work for you.

That's a nice theory, but doesn't work.  In Libya, American forces
supported NATO forces, but did not take the lead.  And it was Libyans
themselves who overthrew Moammar Qadhaffi, not the US or NATO.  All
we did was speed up the process, a process that had taken 42 years
to reach its fruition.

AK>It will kill the government soldiers by stockpiles, destroy tanks,
AK>jet-fighters etc.

Nah.  The UN will collect the chemical weapons and send them to
Russia where they will be destroyed under international supervision.
The Syrian soldiers will be happy to spend time with their families
rather than being shot at or blown up by terrorists.  And the US,
French, and Russian presidents, along with the UN secretary-general,
will be getting all the glory for having put a peace deal together.

AK>The half-stunned bad president will be passed to the opposition
AK>rebels on the plate with a blue rim.

Nah.  Russian President Vladimir Putin will invite him to a party
in Moscow.  Or perhaps in Sochi to enjoy watching Syrian athletes
try to win a gold medal in ... in ... in ... something.

AK>The US and Europe did not realize only one important thing --
AK>such a way to capture power is a very seductive thing.

One does not capture power.  One grabs it, and holds on to it,
for as long as possible.  Preferably forever.  Or at least until
losing one's head.  That is why Bashar al-Assad will never leave.
He is hooked on power.  But there can be no permanemt solution
to the Syrian crisis until he leaves office.  Which is to say
gone (or forcibly removed) from power.

It is known that the Syrian regime used sarin nerve gas on its own
people on August 21.  U.N. inspectors have gathered evidence that
hundreds, perhaps well over a thousand, Syrian civilians have been
killed by sarin nerve gas.  The use of chemical weapons alone is
reason enough to call for the removal from power of Bashar al-Assad.
If the man cannot control his own stockpile of chemical weapons,
what other weapons (or form of warfare) can he be trusted with?
For this reason, and others, the US President has publicly stated
Bashar al-Assad must go.  The Russians know what the Syrian regime
has done, and agree (in private) with US President Barack Obama
that Bashar al-Assad must go.

AK>And the Syrian opposition shamelessly followed the Libyan scenario,
AK>according the same script.

There are many different factions of the Syrian opposition.  Some
of those factions being hardcore terrorist organizations, such as
al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.  Some of those terrorists are not affiliated
with any group or organization, being more like freelancers.  Imagine
that.  Mercenary terrorists.  All of them Muslim.  Not only are they
shooting and blowing up Syrian soldiers, but they are also blowing
up churches (along with whoever might happen to be inside).

AK>They at once declared Assad an illegitimate bloody dictator who
AK>is not worthy to negotiate with.

Like father, like son.  Which one is bloodier?  I'm not sure.
But at least sonny-boy is an eye doctor.  Certainly he can see
more clearly than you or me ...

AK>Indeed, if you wait for NATO's jet-plains -- why should you
AK>negotiate with Assad?

We don't negotiate with terrorists.

AK>What a nonsense.

That's what Ronald Reagan said.
And look what happened to our troops in Lebanon.
They got blown to bits.
That's what happens when Marines fail to load their weapons ...

AK>That is how the situation in Syria was dispossessed of the
AK>possibility to solve the civil conflict peacefully.

Nice fairy tale.  But that's all it is.  A fairy tale.

AK>That why we saw no negotiations, awaiting for jet-planes, spilling
AK>as much blood as possible so to facilitate NATO's intervention.

Negotiations are always held behind closed doors.  You know that.
Not everything negotiated is made public.  You know that.
Only when a deal is made, and agreed upon, are details made available.
You know that.  I know that.  And everybody else knows that.
So what's the problem?

AK>The only way out of this situation is to admit that the Syrian
AK>rebels do not represent the state majority.

President Bashar al-Assad represents less than 10% of the people
of Syria.  The amount of territory within Syria he presently controls
is getting smaller and smaller with each passing day.  At some point,
his very presence will become not even noticed, as the territory he
will control at that point will be only one or two blocks within the
confines of the city of Damascus.

AK>Therefore, they must be forced to the negotiation table.

We do not negotiate with terrorists.

AK>The subject for negotiation on this table is one -- to stop fighting
AK>and hold fair elections.

Who is going to conduct the elections?
Who is going to count the votes?
Who is going to watch who counts the votes?
Who is going to watch the watchers?

How do you go about conducting fair elections in a country that
has been fighting a civil war for years?  Is it even possible?

AK>The rebels must admit that it is possible that they are minority
AK>and they must be ready for a compromise.

You cannot compomise with evil.  You are talking about a regime
that has been proven to have used chemical weapons in its own people.
UN inspectors gathered the evidence showing that sarin nerve gas has
been used.  This action (the use of sarin nerve gas) could only have
been done by the Syrian regime - NOT the opposition.  As such, there
can be no compromise on this issue - BASHAR AL-ASSAD MUST GO!

AK>If the West again makes all the dirty work for the Syrian rebels
AK>as it had done in Libya, it will mean that the situation will repeat
AK>itself soon in some other country.

Syria is not Libya.  The two cannot be compared as being equal.
Libya has a population of 6 million people, almost all Sunni Muslims,
although very tribal as a society.  Syria is a land of 22 million,
a mixture of Sunni, Shiite, Kurds, Alawite, Christian, and other
minorities, ruled by Alawites less than 10% of the population).
Many of the factions fighting against the Syrian regime are from
outside of Syria, each with their own agenda.

AK>In other words - bloody help brings bloody continuation.

Violence begets violence.  More violence begets more violence.
And endless and vicious cycle that cannot seem to be broken.
Find the answer and win the Nobel Peace Prize.

AK>Peaceful help brings peaceful continuation.

Wishful thinking.  Please try again.

AK>There are no countries in the world where the US' bloody help has
AK>provided peace and prosperity.

Although the US does have a long and bloody past, the US is not the
only country.  For example, look at Israel ...

 WD>> Besides, why would a contry stockpile chemical weapons? I thought
 WD>> there was an international treaty about it... Maybe Putin was so
 WD>> quick to offer a control-mechanism to hide the chemical containers
 WD>> with "Made in Russia" at the bottom.

AK>As for chemical weapon use.

Iraq has used chemical weapons.  With our approval.
Syria has used chemical weapons.  Without our approval.
And that, my dear Russian friend, is the difference.

AK>Both sides have such a weapon.

Syria has not signed any international agreements not to have
such weapons.  Neither have terrorist organizations.  Your point?

AK>But who could use it?

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

AK>Just look: the rebels had captured some Damask's suburb
AK>with thousands of people living in it.

Are you suggesting that Bashar al-Assad and his Syrian regime
did not have control over his own stockpile of chemical weapons?

AK>Was it an effective way to free the civilians by using chemical
AK>weapon indiscriminately?

Allegations of such use and evidence of such use can be very different
things, and often are.  The US President claims the Syrian regime has
used chemical weapons, but has failed to show any hard evidence showing
a link between Bashar al-Assad and the use of those weapons.  The
Russian President claims the opposition has used chemical weapons, but
has failed to show any hard evidence showing such use.  So what gives?
Just because somebody says something doesn't make it true.  Even if
it is.

AK>Did Assad use chemical weapon when attacking enemy positions?

President Barack Obama says he did.  UN inspectors claim to have
gathered evidence that Syrian civilians were killed by sarin nerve gas
on August 21.  It is a known fact by all parties that the use of sarin
nerve gas could only have been done by the Syrian regime.

AK>Allegedly, he just dropped chemical bombs and then he didn't launch
AK>any major attack.

The use of sarin nerve gas by the Syrian regime is not alleged, but
established fact.  Whether the Syrian regime chose not to launch any
major attack afterwards remains an open question.

AK>Did his troops have got territory gains after the chemical strike?

It is Syrian territory, even if not occupied by Syrian troops.

AK>No.

The Golan Heights is Syrian territory, even though it remains occupied
by Israeli troops.  Oops.  Different issue.  Sorry about that.

AK>Did the Syrian president was pressed by revels to such extent, that
AK>he had no other options the stop them?

The Syrian dictator had lots of options.  Not all of them viable
options, but options nonetheless.  Unfortunately, he chose the wrong
option.

AK>No, the situation was stable, more of that, the Syrian government
AK>forces had made many successful operations during last weeks.

Of course they did.  The Syrian regime had the guns.  The tanks.
The planes.  The chemical weapons.  The trained and well-equipped
soldiers.  The everything the opposition would have loved to have.

AK>In other words, the main question for investigator is "To whom
AK>it was profitable?"

It is not a matter of profit.  Chemical weapons should never
be used by any country.  Not on its own people.  Not on any other
people(s).  Ditto with biological weapons.

There is such a thing as human rights.  Profitmongers (and
warmongers) tend to forget about that.

AK>The answer: only for those who still waits NATO's jet-fighter
AK>and don't want any peaceful solution for the Syrian civil war.

Everybody should want a peaceful solution.  Not only for the
Syrian civil war, but also for all other wars, including the one
being raged in the Congo.

 WD>> BTW, I'm certain the USA has'm also despited having signed and
 WD>> rattified the relevant treaties.

AK>So, it is fact that rebels have chemical weapon.

And how, pray tell, did they get them?  And what kind of chemical
weapons do they have?  Saying the opposition has chemical weapons
does not tell me very much.  Especially when you have nothing to
support or substantiate that claim.  I am not saying the opposition
has not also used chemical weapons.  Only that no hard evidence has
been shown to that effect.

AK>Most probably they will use it in future.

And if they do, blame it on the Syrian regime.  That is why
it is absolutely necessary to demand hard evidence to back up
that claim.  Otherwise, it would be too easy to start a war,
a real war with big guns (and missiles) that could level
entire cities ...

AK>And the only way to stop further escalation is to make both
AK>sides to negotiate without any preconditons.

We do not negotiate with terrorists.  Instead, we get other
parties to negotiate for us.  That is how such things are done.
Or not.  Depending on if the president is sleeping.  Or not.

AK>The side who refuses to negotiate peace must be the subject
AK>for the UN sanctions, including military ones.

We do not negotiate with terrorists.  And we will not be blackmailed
by the United Nations.  Especially since the UN has no military of its
own ...

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)