Assad and Syria as a big conspiracy

First topic message reminder :

The arab league has tepidly dealt with the syria problem. It is a big problem and a human rights violation at least, as well as terrorism! The army terrorises the people. If Obama wanted to get some votes back he would get stuck in there. There will be very little over turning of the state when they are removed from power, like the first month of the iraq war, then pull out. Let the people build it up again. Of course this might not become reality, what with the us and syria, so the people need a plan.
 
In such a corrupt world, they would need little encouragement to find illegal arms. With these arms they could fight a civil war. If the arab leauge is serious about the terrorism they could avoid, they could either intervene, or sell weapons to the civilians or defectors. Of course nurturing terrorism is not 'cool', so they would need to do something to thwart it.

oftenwrong wrote:Soon after the death of Bassel, Hafez Assad made the decision to make Bashar the new heir-apparent. Over the next six and half years, until his death in 2000, Hafez went about systematically preparing Bashar for taking over power. Preparations for a smooth transition were made on three levels. First, support was built up for Bashar in the military and security apparatus. Second, Bashar's image was established with the public. And lastly, Bashar was familiarized with the mechanisms of running the country.

To establish his credentials in the military, Bashar entered in 1994 the military academy at Homs, north of Damascus, and was propelled through the ranks to become a colonel in January 1999. To establish a power base for Bashar in the military, old divisional commanders were pushed into retirement, and new, young, Alawite officers with loyalties to him took their place.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad

Well I hate to nit-pick, but this gives me little choice.

As in this post is saying NOTHING.

You do not tell if you agree or disagree, or if that is posted as an affirmation of the subject? or are you trying to add some other aspect?

As such the comment is completely incoherent.

And I do not mean any disrespect as I welcome any input or discussion here, but your post is just indistinguishable - FYI.

JP Cusick wrote:
Assad being a Western spy or implant or puppet is why both Britain and the USA are resisting any military action against Syria, because our gov's want and support Assad.
 
Then why does Russia support Assad? because Russia gets huge profits from military and commodities sales to Syria, and Russia is another white Euro people who shares the Western view that the best of Syrian is a dead Syrian.
 
President Obama is pressured by the evidence of the use of chemical weapons, but nothing else, as his other (and bigger) pressure is to support Assad.
 

That is an interesting perpective JP. There is however, a major world view,I'm sure you know,that this will be seen like the wars preceding Syria; Afghanistan,Iraq,and Libya. People have lost the trust and will to believe the case for such actions are neccessary.  The parrallels are well noted when these past leaders of said nations were once on the Christmas card list of the UK and USA. The pressure I would gather, would include on the Presidents mind as to ,'How will the citizens and world public react this time around?'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad
Well I hate to nit-pick, but this gives me little choice.

As in this post is saying NOTHING.

You do not tell if you agree or disagree, or if that is posted as an affirmation of the subject? or are you trying to add some other aspect?

As such the comment is completely incoherent.

And I do not mean any disrespect as I welcome any input or discussion here, but your post is just indistinguishable - FYI.

Alternative Realities, Sir, for readers to compare and contrast.  It was unnecessary to include the fact that I found the conspiracy theory risible, that's probably a fault in me.

Ivan wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:-
it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had been behind it, and that there was "some" intelligence to suggest that was the case.

Maybe the intelligence was that our despicable Tory-dominated government sold Assad chemicals that can make nerve gas. Then, when in all probability he used them, Cameron couldn’t wait to bomb the hell out of him!

In January, ten months after Syria’s bloody civil war began, export licences were granted to UK firms to sell chemicals (potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride) to Syria which are capable of being used to make the nerve gas sarin. That's believed to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1,500 people, including 426 children.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-2242520

It's now come to light (find the link yourself, or I'll get banned) that the licences to sell the chemicals to Syria was issued between 2004-2010, does that still make it Cameron's government fault? Just wondering.

find the link yourself, or I'll get banned

tlttf. You are a liar. Nobody on this forum has ever been banned for posting a link to a news article. Advertising a newspaper after at least five warnings is an entirely different matter, but we can always rely on you to misrepresent the facts. Just as you like to pretend that you’ve been given temporary bans because of your odious political views – nothing of course to do with refusing to retract libel, breaking copyright rules, advertising or posting complaints on threads, with most of those transgressions occurring on any number of occasions.
 
Interesting to see you rushing to the defence of Cameron’s government. When it suits your cause, you pretend that you have no time for all those ‘liberals’: the most right-wing government in modern times isn’t right-wing enough for you. Yet here you are distorting the facts to exonerate Cameron! Less than a week ago on this very thread you were defending exports to Syria, on the basis that most chemicals can indeed be put to more than one use. Now, when you find in your favourite grotty little tabloid what looks like a chance to smear Labour, your attitude suddenly changes. Bare-faced hypocrisy.
 
Fact 1. The Syrian civil war began on 15 March 2011.
 
Fact 2. The last Labour government issued five export licences between July 2004 and May 2010 for the sale of sodium fluoride to a Syrian cosmetics company for a legitimate purpose. There was no reason in those days not to issue the licences.
 
Fact 3. In January 2012, ten months after Syria’s bloody civil war began, Cameron’s government granted more export licences to UK firms to sell chemicals to Syria. By then there was every reason not to issue the licences.
 
Whether or not any more chemicals were actually exported to Syria should be immaterial to someone who lectures us about “moral spines” (whatever they might be). Cameron and his fellow scum knew there was a civil war going on in Syria but didn’t give a damn if those chemicals were sent there.

Hindsight is a wonderful gift. Who remembers the CIA arming and training the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Like so many things, it probably seemed a good idea at the time.

oftenwrong wrote:Hindsight is a wonderful gift. Who remembers the CIA arming and training the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Heh, yeah ... and who did that? Yep ... Reagan's right-wing government.

ibidem Deposing the elected President Allende in Chile, invading Grenada when the locals made anti-American noises, creating a diversion in Nicaragua when they objected to being colonised by the USA and continuing disruption of Cuba, Panama and Venezuela for rejecting the American way of life.

All officially Christian communities, so what chance do heathens stand?

The point of this is to show that major powers almost always get involved in the civil wars of smaller powers.

Didn't realise the Native Americans were having a civil war   
Also - the phrase you use - ALMOST always - suggests there may be another option - so perhaps interference is NOT inevitable.
I think if we look at the results of various military interventions throughout history, it's my impression (and I confess I haven't made a thorough study of such things) that the outcome is often bad for the idigenous population (i.e. worse than not intervening)  and can involve unintended consequences for the interveners.

I need to go back and read the rest of your post to reply further.

oftenwrong wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad

Alternative Realities, Sir, for readers to compare and contrast.  It was unnecessary to include the fact that I found the conspiracy theory risible, that's probably a fault in me.

But you did not and do not give any alternative.

Assad studied to be a Doctor in Britain, and Assad's wife is still a British citizen, and his older brother who was to take over the rule of Syria just happened to conveniently die in suspicious car crash.

Assad also lived in Syria and he had most of his education there and Assad went to the Syrian military academy, etc etc.

The better evidence against the loyalties of Assad is the massive killing of the Syrian people, and Britain votes against any military action, as the evidence points to Assad being a puppet of the West.

Just saying.

Jsmythe wrote:That is an interesting perpective JP. There is however, a major world view,I'm sure you know,that this will be seen like the wars preceding Syria; Afghanistan,Iraq,and Libya. People have lost the trust and will to believe the case for such actions are neccessary.  The parrallels are well noted when these past leaders of said nations were once on the Christmas card list of the UK and USA. The pressure I would gather, would include on the Presidents mind as to ,'How will the citizens and world public react this time around?'

One of the big problems with the forms of the so-called "democracies" in the USA and in the UK is that it gives the people (the voters) an unreal feeling that they actually have some say in the world affairs.

If the USA and the UK had wanted to bomb Syria then there would not be any vote or popular opinion pole, as they would have bombed and that would be that.

You must tell us how you change the topic heading.

I can't do that.

oftenwrong wrote:You must tell us how you change the topic heading.

I can't do that.

I do not know whatever you mean?

The title was = Assad and Syria as a big conspiracy.

Unless you mean where I type in "Reply" as that is just a blank space there every time.

JP Cusick is quite correct. Members can't change the title of a thread, only the staff can do that. What members can do is to insert a title in a follow-up post. Most people tend to leave that blank, in which case the thread title re-appears with 'Re:' in front of it.
 
I trust that clarifies the matter and that we can all return to discussing the thread topic.

Which University is going to be the first to offer a degree in social networking? (Watch this space....)

Meanwhile, back at Assad villas, the international situation is that EVERYONE wants part of the action.

What larks!

JP Cusick wrote:
Assad being a Western spy or implant or puppet is why both Britain and the USA are resisting any military action against Syria, because our gov's want and support Assad.
 
Then why does Russia support Assad? because Russia gets huge profits from military and commodities sales to Syria, and Russia is another white Euro people who shares the Western view that the best of Syrian is a dead Syrian.

What this really means is that based on both the religious bigotry and on racist bigotry then the entire white world is cooperating in the murder of as many people in Syria as they can.

It is religious bigotry against Muslims, and racist bigotry against the brown skin people.

Unfortunately my President Obama was raised by and indoctrinated by his white family.

I really don't see how racism or religious bigotry really fits into the Syrian crisis. There's simply no evidence of it.

There are plenty of Muslims with colored skin in Africa butchering each other and yet we're not even talking about going there to murder in the name of racism and religious bigotry.

Shirina wrote:I really don't see how racism or religious bigotry really fits into the Syrian crisis. There's simply no evidence of it.

There are plenty of Muslims with colored skin in Africa butchering each other and yet we're not even talking about going there to murder in the name of racism and religious bigotry.

That is misunderstanding my point.

The murder of the Syrians has been going on for a couple years now, and we do NOT help them, so we murder them by doing nothing.

Some time ago the USA said that we were going to arm the rebels - and it never happened.

It is NOT that we are going to murder the Syrians - no, that is not what I am saying - we are letting Assad kill as many as he can like a puppet doing our dirty work.

Interesting article here......though I'm sure Shirina might disagree with the general thrust of it's argument.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/09/obama-rogue-state-tramples-every-law

Thanks for posting that, sick - lots of food for thought

When The USA says "White", the Russians will riposte "Black", and vice-versa. The actual subject under discussion is subordinate to their determination to oppose each other.

oftenwrong wrote:When The USA says "White", the Russians will riposte "Black", and vice-versa.  The actual subject under discussion is subordinate to their determination to oppose each other.  

I find that to be a very common view, and yet I see it as very unjust.

But I find that unjust because I have done some research and found out the bigger stories.

Russia has never been an enemy of the USA, as they were our ally in the two world wars, and even the USSR was named after the USA - Union and United mean the same thing, as does Republics and States mean the same thing, so the USSR was named after the USA = United Soviet Socialist States.

When Chairman Khrushchev took off his shoe and pounded the shoe on his table at the United Nations then we in the USA were told that Khrushchev was a lunatic, but when I read up about the event Khrushchev was trying to have a nuclear arms treaty while the other members would not talk about that, and he got upset because the nuclear treaty was important to them and not to our side.

Even today Russia knows that Assad is a western puppet and Russia has control over the Syrian military, so there is no contradiction or vice-versa where it comes to the killing of brown skin Muslims in Syria.

JP Cusick wrote:Even today Russia knows that Assad is a western puppet and Russia has control over the Syrian military, so there is no contradiction or vice-versa where it comes to the killing of brown skin Muslims in Syria.

Hmm, why would the Russians sell Syria its weapon systems to a Western puppet? I don't think Russia controls the Syrian military unless Russia is helping Assad, a Western puppet, to defeat the rebels.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:Even today Russia knows that Assad is a western puppet and Russia has control over the Syrian military, so there is no contradiction or vice-versa where it comes to the killing of brown skin Muslims in Syria.

Hmm, why would the Russians sell Syria its weapon systems to a Western puppet? I don't think Russia controls the Syrian military unless Russia is helping Assad, a Western puppet, to defeat the rebels.

That is the way that nation-States deal with each other.

Russia is essentially getting paid off and maintaining its own control over Syria, while the West gets the puppet that we want.

And there is another principle involved there too:

"When your enemy is my enemy then we are friends." = As in the enemy being Muslims and Syrian rebels.

The drum only sounds one note, that Assad works for the NSA, which is only slightly more likely than saying the same thing about Putin. The USA (and Britain) have over time appointed several stooges to Middle-East governments mainly to safeguard Oil supplies, but just because Assad has an English wife hardly makes of him a puppet. Muslim men are not famous for acknowledging feminism.

oftenwrong wrote:The drum only sounds one note, that Assad works for the NSA,

Sir:

The idea is to stay on the thread subject, which is why I am drumming the same one note.

On the religious thread then I stick to the religious topic, and in politics the politic subject, and here it is the "Assad / Syria conspiracy" and so I stick to that drum role.

And I expect that Assad is a British operative (MI6) and not for the NSA of the USA.

FYI.

JP Cusick said.
  "and even the USSR was named after the USA"

I do hope you're joking!

Perhaps some of those in the USA are not aware that it was Cameron who was banging the drum loudest for attacks on Assad's government for it's still alleged use of chemical weapons...Something that still has yet to be proved......

It was Cameron who was trying to drag Obama in to in using US might......

The only conspiracy is that the west knows that the Rebels have used WMD's and that the West want rid of Assad so that there can be a Haliburton Oil Pipeline direct from Iraq to the Med...Thereby cutting out the need to use the Suez Canal and at the same time providing a coastline for the possibility of troop deployment

Surely you can't mean to suggest, astradt, that David Cameron sought to deceive not only the British People, but also the US Administration?

That's chutzpah of the highest degree. He just wanted a "Falklands moment" of his own before his inevitable sacking.

bobby wrote:JP Cusick said.
  "and even the USSR was named after the USA"

I do hope you're joking!

I really did explain that in detail, but I surely will explain it further.

The name "United States" is a generic name, in that it was originally used just to describe the new federal republic as a union of States, and I do not believe there was ever any mention in the old documents whether anyone actually discussed giving the union a real name as the generic name of "United States" simply stuck.  

In the "Declaration of Independence" Thomas Jefferson worded the name with some large print letters like this:   ...... the thirteen united STATES of AMERICA.   See link HERE.

The name is not discussed at all in the Federalist Papers.

And it is very important to know that the original "America" is now called "South America" but in the beginning then the southern continent was "America" and then they discovered a northern part which subsequently became "North America", so the southern continent is more accurately "America and American" than is the northern continent. See map "AMERICI" in 1507, linked HERE.

Plus the true name for Mexico, the Country on the southern USA border, is correctly named as the "United States of Mexico" because "United States or United Republics" are generic names which simply describe the condition - States that are united, or Republics which are united, or are a "union" as done by the old USSR who called itself a union of Republics.

Of course the "USSR" could have rightly been translated otherwise into English as the "Soviet-Socialist-United-States" (S.S.U.S.) - but no.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

astradt1 wrote:Perhaps some of those in the USA are not aware that it was Cameron who was banging the drum loudest for attacks on Assad's government for it's still alleged use of chemical weapons...Something that still has yet to be proved......

It was Cameron who was trying to drag Obama in to in using US might......  

Cameron did nothing without talking to the USA first, as we are close friends we know, and both Cameron and Obama want to look tough and to act tough, but they both are just putting on a political show in this case.

And it is noteworthy that they complain about chemical weapons killing a couple thousand people, while they are saying virtually nothing about the estimated 10,000 killed per month by conventional weapons.

So even if we do bomb Syria we are not going to even try to stop the killing, as we only want to hit the so called weapons of mass destruction, and the real fear is that the weapons might be used against Israel if the Syrian gov ever falls to the Syrian people.

What they are doing is truly despicable.

JP Cusick wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:
Assad being a Western spy or implant or puppet is why both Britain and the USA are resisting any military action against Syria, because our gov's want and support Assad.
 
Then why does Russia support Assad? because Russia gets huge profits from military and commodities sales to Syria, and Russia is another white Euro people who shares the Western view that the best of Syrian is a dead Syrian.

What this really means is that based on both the religious bigotry and on racist bigotry then the entire white world is cooperating in the murder of as many people in Syria as they can.

It is religious bigotry against Muslims, and racist bigotry against the brown skin people.

Unfortunately my President Obama was raised by and indoctrinated by his white family.

Another point is that who supplied Syria with the chemical weapons?

There is an implication that Russia supplied the weapons, but in Iraq we found out that the chemical weapons in Iraq were supplied by the USA.

And does not the USA have our own stockpile of our own chemical and biological weapons? Yes.

Does not the UK have its own stockpile of its own chemical and biological weapons? Yes.

The only purpose of those weapons are to kill people, and to kill people in massive amounts, and it is not to destroy the property but just the inhabitants, so are we not a severe hypocrite in this? I say so.

The conspiracy theory loses traction when you choose the alternative "cock-up" explanation.

Obama knew he'd used the wrong words in suggesting that Syria had crossed a red line by their use of chemical weaponry. All subsequent events stem from that loose remark.

The red line line was not optional, and the correlation of chemical weapons in the location of the UN was also a warning to them, I might speculate. Didn't Putin try to help us see how countries are being manipulated by terror attacks, and coerced into compromising any moral high ground for profit and oil?? Whatever happened to the so-called war on terror - a misnomer if ever there was one?? Riddles within riddles, playing for high stakes, or any other cliche you like - conspiracy theories have a place in all this, but your guess is as good as mine which ones might be anywhere near the mark......................

JP Cusick wrote:The only purpose of those weapons are to kill people, and to kill people in massive amounts, and it is not to destroy the property but just the inhabitants, so are we not a severe hypocrite in this? I say so.

No on both counts.

First, the unholy trinity of weaponry (nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC)) exist as political bargaining chips. North Korea has been using their nuclear program to blackmail the USA for around 20 years. If one of the "Kims" didn't like the USA holding military exercises with South Korea, Kim would threaten to rekindle North Korea's nuclear weapon research -- as an example. Those nations in the nuclear club have greater influence, greater prestige, and more clout than a nation not in the club. That also holds true for the other two parts of the unholy trinity. If you have WMDs of any kind, your nation is going to be taken more seriously than nations without it. Not to mention that having such weapons is a really big deterrant ... it's called "the peace dividend."

Secondly, no, the USA and the UK aren't necessarily hypocrites. We're not after Assad's chemical weapons simply because he possesses them. No, we're after his chemical weapons because he ostensibly USED them. Like I said, it's one thing to use chemical weapons as a factor in the standard political brinkmanship, it is another to use them on the battlefield.

I also don't want to hear anything about Vietnam. That was 40+ years ago under an entirely different administration. When someone does wrong, I tend to blame that "someone" - i.e. a president, a prime minister, a chancellor, and his or her administration - NOT the nation. It would really suck if a current president was politically shackled by the actions of a previous president that led the nation decades or even centuries ago. It would be saying that, because Lyndon Johnson allowed chemical weapons to be used (did he?) then Barack Obama isn't allowed to stop someone else from using them. It would be like saying a convicted rapist is morally wrong if he tries to stop someone else from raping. That would be hypocritical!

Shirina wrote: .... because Lyndon Johnson allowed chemical weapons to be used (did he?) then Barack Obama isn't allowed to stop someone else from using them. It would be like saying a convicted rapist is morally wrong if he tries to stop someone else from raping. That would be hypocritical!

There is no secret about the use of Chemical Agents during the Vietnam conflict:  "Agent Orange" which destroyed all growing vegetation, and the disgusting Napalm which was specifically designed to burn the human body.

oftenwrong wrote: "Agent Orange" which destroyed all growing vegetation, and the disgusting Napalm which was specifically designed to burn the human body.

Napalm wasn't classified as a chemical weapon -- except in the sense that ALL weapons function in whole or in part due to chemical reactions.

Shirina wrote:Napalm wasn't classified as a chemical weapon -- except in the sense that ALL weapons function in whole or in part due to chemical reactions.

I suppose that if Syria has Napalm then that weapon will not count as a chemical weapon?

Somehow I expect that the USA will include Napalm in their demands from Syria - Napalm in Syria.

Shirina wrote: North Korea has been using their nuclear program to blackmail the USA for around 20 years.

It seems to me that we the USA are the ones who have been threatening North Korea with our Nuclear weapons for some 63 years, since at least 1950.

And I see it as impressive that they did not cower under our threats.

Yep - the North Koreans kept their massive armies within their own land, died from famine when the harvests failed, and occasionally threw words across the border at their neighbours.

Britain and America are a bit more proactive abroad, and before Iraq I was comfortable that we were on the whole the good guys. Now it is all about money and oil and we are pawns in the game.

Saudi and Iran sit together at the OPEC table and play us for the chips we offer. Insurgents send in their claim forms to KSA for their monthly pay. Morality no longer has anything to do with it.

Could this be why Rupert Murdoch's stooge in Downing Street was in such a desperate rush to attack Syria a few months ago, or is it just another conspiracy theory?  
 
"Israel has granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights, to Genie Energy. Major shareholders of Genie Energy – which also has interests in shale gas in the United States and shale oil in Israel – include Rupert Murdoch and Lord Jacob Rothschild."
 
Details here:-
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/02/israel-grants-oil-rights-in-syria-to-murdoch-and-rothschild/

Whatever the motivation, Cameron's defeat in the Commons saved Obama's bacon.
Difficult to say what the dirty digger might have thought about that outcome.