Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 21, 2013

Kiribati Drowns? Bomb Syria!

How stupid the idiotic "western" attack on Syria by sending Jihadi mercenaries actually is can be seen in the crazy arguments used to beg for supporting their fight. Those arguments go like this: "We" should bomb the Syrian Arab Army to prevent its use of hydrocarbons, thereby lessen global warming and prevent the Kiribati atolls from vanishing into the see. Or something like that.

The Washington Post editors believe that Syria must be bombed because Putin is harsh on Russian lunatics, does not heed to Washington demands and fulfills his contracts with the Syrian state:

In an attempt to suppress swelling protests against his rigged reelection and the massively corrupt autocracy he presides over, Mr. Putin has launched what both Russian and Western human rights groups describe as the most intense and pervasive campaign of political repression since the downfall of the Soviet Union.
...
This from the folks who applauded a dictatorial Yeltsin when he ordered tanks to fire on the elected Russian parliament. But back to their high point:
Mr. Putin has devoted himself to thwarting the Western goal of regime change in Syria, a stance that serves his political goals at home as much as it does in the Middle East.

Unless and until President Bashar al-Assad loses Syria’s civil war — something Russia is trying to prevent with massive supplies of weapons — Mr. Putin will not alter this stance.

So to make Putin behave better at his home, the editors say, "we" must bomb Syria just like "we" bombed Serbia. This even when those cases differ in all dimensions.

Even more lunatic are the editors of The Economist, a formerly reasonable magazine. They say "we" must bomb Syria because otherwise Iran will - somehow - get nukes:

The growing risk of a nuclear Iran is one reason why the West should intervene decisively in Syria not just by arming the rebels, but also by establishing a no-fly zone.
There is of course no chain of logic behind that conclusion. How bombing Syria will prevent Iran to do whatever it wants to do within Iran is not explained at all. It is pure believe that Kiribati will be saved if only "we" bomb the Syrian army. It is all pure nonsense.

Just like Obama's "aim" for Syria is pure nonsense:

[a] stable, non-sectarian representative Syrian government that is addressing the needs of its people through peaceful processes
Sure. And this and a pink unicorn will get you there?

To achieve his aim, Obama says, he will provide weapons to the foreign insurgents. As we reported a week ago those weapons are already there. Some 120 anti-air MANPADs and some 250 anti-tank missiles were delivered to north Syria several weeks ago under the watchful eyes of the CIA and its Turkish colleagues. The Associated Press, which has finally caught up with us on this, tells us who received them:

The new shipment earlier this month— said to be only the second sent by Gulf countries since November, and the first ever known to include some anti-aircraft missiles—caused a stir among rebels who say it went to one of the extreme Islamist groups, Ahrar al-Sham. The group is the strongest member of the Syrian Islamist Front, made up of 11 Islamist factions, which appears to be increasingly posing as a parallel to the Western-backed Free Syrian Army, a loose umbrella group of rebel fighters.
More weapons are also coming from Libya and will be transported through Turkey. These will also go to the most radical fighters on the ground. New weapons from Croatia, organized by the U.S. and payed for by the Qatar, have been seen on the ground in south Syria. Meanwhile new religiously motivated mercenaries for the war are recruited in Egypt and other countries.

All the countries involved in sending these weapons and foreign fanatics to Syria are U.S. "allies". None of these deliveries would happen without Washington's agreement. Now tell me how sending such people and more weapons will create "a stable, non-sectarian representative Syrian government". It will of course not achieve anything like that.

While we know that Obama's announced aim is obviously not his real one, we are still kept in the unknown of what he wants. Is it a "level playing field"? What does that mean? Or something different? I still think Obama wanted to achieve "regime change" but has by now recognized that he can not achieve that. The impotent superpower then falls back to make things as worse as possible and sets this aim:

Destruction of the infrastructure, economy and social fabric of Syria is their and their supporters aim.

Total destruction, especially social destruction, takes time. It is a slow process. Bombing "too early", as the lunatics want, will not achieve that. As he can not "have it" Obama wishes Syria to die a slow, horrible death. That is the only sense I can make from what he does.

I though do not think that he will achieve that aim.

Posted by b on June 21, 2013 at 10:35 AM | Permalink

Comments

Just wait till they get to Doha this weekend
where they will discuss the 'no fly zone' aka massive civilian slaughter to pressure Assad
I have been on this most of this week at my place
Yourself and few others may be interested in some additional filling in of the blanks

The Aspin doctrine and more
wrapped up in todays post, where I wrap it all up

http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2013/06/wrap-up-battle-aleppo-kosovoserbia-us.html

Oddly enough there is a Washington post piece that makes a direct reference to the alleged 'success' in Serbia
Kosovo offers US a roadmap for Syria
Yes, boys and girls it looks like NATO nutters are going to bomb Syria and cause mass civilian casualties to pressure Assad prior to Geneva
Insanity rules the day
PPP: Psycho, Predators and Pedophiles
Can't put a dam thing past these b@st@rds

WP:" IT’S BEEN 14 years since the United States, defying Russian obstruction in the U.N. Security Council, launched an air campaign....
Critics warned at the time that U.S. intervention would sow chaos or empower radicals"

Which of course it did. Kosovo is a NATO controlled terror state
which doesn't bother WP one bit


From my post earlier this week..

http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2013/06/obama-syria-and-aspin-doctrine-plans.html

The indication that NATO will engage in mass slaughter of civilians to pressure the Assad government:

"The area near the Jordanian border contains some of the most densely-populated parts of Syria, including the outskirts of the capital Damascus"

Perfect place for a no fly zone, isn't it?

Posted by: Penny | Jun 21, 2013 11:00:12 AM | 1

Time to start supplying MANPADs to the Taliban as US/Nato forces prepare to withdraw..??? Iran/Russia are you watching this....

Posted by: Irshad | Jun 21, 2013 11:10:00 AM | 2

A blast from the past (2003) but apropos vis a vis the lunacy of the MSM as cited above.

The Nuremberg tribunal and the role of the media

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/04/nure-a16.html

[The Nuremberg prosecutors argued [unsuccessfully, unfortunately]: “Fritzsche incited atrocities and encouraged a ruthless occupation policy. The results of propaganda as a weapon of the Nazi conspirators reaches into every aspect of this conspiracy, including the atrocities and ruthless exploitation in occupied countries. It is likely that many ordinary Germans would never have participated in or tolerated the atrocities committed throughout Europe, had they not been conditioned and goaded by the constant Nazi propaganda. The callousness and zeal of the people who actually committed the atrocities was in large part due to the constant and corrosive propaganda of Fritzsche and his official associates.”

These "lunatic" MSM propagandists should be considered war criminals just as much as those who actually push the death-dealing buttons and give the marching orders, period.

The recent, too clever-by-half propagandistic meme of US citizens "having a debate" with TPTB about rights enshrined in our founding documents is just one of the more blatant/recent aspects of war criminality.

People have to stop falling for the "let's debate" tactic of these war criminals.

The WaPo/Economist editorial positions are non-debatable and they should be considered blatant war-crimes and labeled as such every time such disgusting writings appear.

It is not no longer a 1st Amendment issue when you are blatantly lying and calling for the murder of innocent people no matter how much they would like us all to believe it.

TPTB WANT us to "debate", "analyze", "discuss", "argue", etc about their lies and calls for more death when we should be consistently and loudly condemning/prosecuting them for engaging in behavior that is criminal.

Sure, let's have a "debate" about killing thousands of more innocent people instead of having rightfully indignant/disgusted masses string up any one even suggesting such despicable behavior.

Ever wonder who the trolls are on news discussion groups/forums?

It is not the posters who are disruptive.

No, the trolls are the ones engaging in the "serious" debate when everyone person with a shred of conscience should be calling for the heads of the authors of such sociopathic filth.

The trolls are the ones staking out "serious" debate positions when the only acceptable position is that of revulsion and castigation.

Posted by: War Crimes | Jun 21, 2013 11:18:05 AM | 3

Jesus man! Putin better nit be bluffing about his promises. The bear should protect his cub (assad) no matter what in these hard times!

Iran and russia need to start supplying MANPADS to the taliban like irshad said. The satans of whitehouse are testing the waters right now and think that Putin doesn't have to balls to make a move. China is terribly quite these days...maybe they got paid to shut the hell up...

At this point, the only one to stand up against the west is Putin... there is no other way out.

Posted by: Shoes | Jun 21, 2013 12:16:20 PM | 4

News on Syria is fizzling out here in the UK, though admittedly I'm in perpetual suspension that something is brewing.

Still, slow recognition that there is no alternative to peace talks and high profile incidents such as that of the Syrian Hannibal Lecter and the young boy recently shot in the face by rebels in Aleppo for blasphemy may have taken their toll on those who wish to be seen speaking out in favour of arming these animals. Of course, there are always the exceptions. Ain't it so, Mr Blair.

Did anybody else spot the nuggets to emerge from G8, whereby David Cameron stated that essentially the Syrian army, its security forces and other state institutions could remain post-Assad i.e. just give him up. Please.

G8 leaders also called on the Syrian authorities and the opposition to commit to destroying all organisations affiliated with Al Qaeda.


A free pass then for the Syrian Government to continue its counter-terrorism operations.

And did any fellow Brits watch BBC Question Time last night? I was proud to be British when the issue of arming the 'Syrian' 'rebels' came up, and when the audience jeered one panelist's attitude towards Iran. A classic edition.

Posted by: Pat Bateman | Jun 21, 2013 12:48:21 PM | 5

I'm beginning to wonder about Obama's connection to reality, but he seems to think he can still pull out some oratorical tricks and the public will once again believe in him. Or...maybe, he is fully cognizant of how he must act (stupidly and badly re: Syria, as shown by his recent statements and actions) in order to avoid facing some dire consequences to himself or loved ones from his masters and controllers, the Powers That Be that got him his presidency.

Whatever the motivations, Obama is coming into focus as a very bad president for the people of the USA and as a player on the world stage.

His actual actions and his words, at least his words when addressing the public, are more and more widely disconnected, increasing the likelihood the public will see him for what he is, a puppet of those we cannot see and hear. That I think is behind is recent loss of approval by the public. It's becoming just too obvious and it's no longer possible to pretend he's being "forced" to do things by the mean Republicans. If he is being forced to do things against his real principles, those doing the forcing are not just Republicans but some kind of power conglomeration the public is unable to identify.

Snowden may be helping to remove the scales from the eyes of many of the public. Finally, something is getting through that the "hope and change" candidate was a facade and what's behind the tattered mask is an ugly, mean, awful real person doing awful things.

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 21, 2013 12:59:28 PM | 6

@ Shoes #4

Iran won't give any damn thing to Taliban , they have the same root as Al Qaede so Iran won't help them ...

Posted by: A Person | Jun 21, 2013 1:24:08 PM | 7

@ Pat Bateman

Did anybody else spot the nuggets to emerge from G8, whereby David Cameron stated that essentially the Syrian army, its security forces and other state institutions could remain post-Assad i.e. just give him up. Please.

Yeah this idea makes most sense. Cameron/Hollande/Obama need Assad to step down after taking public stances about his ouster. But they also don't trust there own proxies. The lessons of De-Baathification in Iraq are still fresh.

My guess is once Assad goes (and Russia is going to sell him out) they pick a Baathist secular military figure and crush the Jihadist types. That way NATO gets rid of Assad and also the Jihadists but without the collapsing state starting a region wide War. Russia would also save face since it keeps the Pro-Russian Baathist system, keeps its Tartus base, stops any spillage into Russia's borders.

My guess is that Russia will agree to drop Assad on the condition it can engineer his successor within the Syrian Arab Army. NATO will agree for no other reason than to save face and because it is the only option for ousting Assad that they have. Assad will probably be able to go into exile in Moscow or Tehran with his millions.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jun 21, 2013 1:24:47 PM | 8

Exclusive: U.S. secretly providing training for Syrian rebels
Since late last year, CIA and U.S. military operatives have been teaching Syrian rebels how to use anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns at bases in Jordan and Turkey, according to U.S. and rebel sources.

When i wrote about the "new weapons" coming to Syria a week or so ago I said that the people using them MUST have had training. Well, of course they had training ...

CIA operatives and U.S. special operations troops have been secretly training Syrian rebels with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons since late last year, months before President Obama approved plans to begin directly arming them, according to U.S. officials and rebel commanders. ... The training has involved fighters from the Free Syrian Army, a loose confederation of rebel groups that the Obama administration has promised to back with expanded military assistance, said a U.S. official, who discussed the effort anonymously because he was not authorized to disclose details.
There is a lot of chaff and nonsense in that piece. Like "training on machine guns" when in fact the training has been on ATGMs.

Posted by: b | Jun 21, 2013 1:36:01 PM | 9

@3 War Crimes

I couldn't agree more. Those who press for these crimes should pay as much of a price as those who commit them. The intellectual class in America is very rotten.

@8 Colm
"My guess is once Assad goes (and Russia is going to sell him out) they pick a Baathist secular military figure and crush the Jihadist types."

This sounds like a victory to me. I don't think it should be about Assad at all. Should it come to pass that the way too keep NATO and al Qaeda out of Syria means he has to go (though I don't see that scenario developing) then so be it.

I do think it is important that he, or some clear continuation of his government, makes it until the 2014 elections and let the Syrians make their choice about him. If he fails at the polls (highly unlikely) then he should be allowed to go peaceably into exile. This idea of "Assad the Butcher" is a complete fabrication. He has lead his country bravely and has prevented more atrocities by his actions than had he let al Qaeda have it's way with Syria.

It will require big political moves from all sides to give the elections international legitimacy. It will most certainly require the crushing of the Jihadis seeing as how voting is haram to them. Then you'll have left the "FSA" (whatever that turns out to be... four or five guys in matching green baseball caps...?) which remains can feel free to contest the elections. My guess is they have all the support of an IMF endorsed technocrat government in Greece or Italy - around 3-5% of the vote.

Posted by: guest77 | Jun 21, 2013 1:48:28 PM | 10

I don't know. I saw Putin the other night on RT in a candid roundtable interview and he was equal parts jovial, sarcastic, and direct. He came across as nervous - not nervous at being interviewed, but wracked, in the sense of having a giant gnawing decision to make.

Putin certainly has access to likely agrees with the logical assessments made here and elsewhere. What would we do if we were him?

He did bring up, in that interview, that he would only have one choice if the US starts lobbing missiles too nearby.

Posted by: L Bean | Jun 21, 2013 2:26:11 PM | 11

The west has no coherent policy, beyond damaging/destroying syria will undermine Iran, which is why they find themselves on the side of the jihadis and they tell themselves that these can be taken care of later on... Problem is, they have no results to point to, the French have pulled out of Mali and the Islamists still hold parts of that country, but they are working to get those people into talks with the government. The US are about to go into talks with the Taliban, an organization still under the leadership of the same man who refused to hand over Osama bin laden. The Iraqis have more or less kicked the Americans out, but they have been left with a terminally ill central government, and the sectarian constitution has left the state exposed to division along sectarian and ethnic lines... I think the US should reflect on all these less than spectacular results and reconsider its options in syria with a more realistic calculus.

Posted by: OAB | Jun 21, 2013 2:53:47 PM | 12

Putin has taken "a stance that serves his political goals at home?"
Obama doesn't do such a thing.
Gallup: Americans Disapprove of U.S. Decision to Arm Syrian Rebels

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21, 2013 3:11:14 PM | 13

@ Guest77

Agree about the 2014 elections. Think the two options fall into the best likely case and worst likely case.

- Best likely Scenario: Bashar Assad goes into the Geneva Peace Talks with the FSA collapsing due to defeats. Agrees to open up the elections next year on the condition that he will also be running. Due to fear of an Islamist takeover amoung voters, Assad wins the election, dealing massive loss to the NATO led regime change operation.

- Worst likely Scenario : At the Geneva Peace Talks US-EU stick to the line "Assad must step down". Russia decides to cut a deal sacrificing Assad while maintaining the Syrian system. Muslim Brotherhood allowed to run but gets a minority in parliament. Baath party wins with strongman close to Russia elected. Assad goes into exile and status quo maintained.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jun 21, 2013 3:12:01 PM | 14

If I were Putin & NATO made me "an offer I couldn't refuse", about letting go of Assad, yet keeping everything else "as is". Plus, plus a freehand at crushing the Jihadis. I'd have to pinch my nose, and make the decision of telling Bashar to step down & allowing his people to survive. I think that is what would've happened in Libya if Gaddafi would have stepped down right away. If he would have "made like a tree & leaved". His sons would still be alive and still somewhat in charge instead of dead and in exile.

Posted by: Fernando | Jun 21, 2013 3:15:56 PM | 15

The no-fly zone won't fly with the Pentagon.

TIME

Lawmakers on Sunday pressed for President Obama to put a “no-fly zone” in place over Syria, even as U.S. military officers have expressed doubts over its effectiveness.

“We need to create a no-fly zone,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “We cannot take air power out of the equation.”

But, Pentagon officials say, that is unlikely to help the rebels or Syrian civilians caught in the cross fire of a brutal civil war pitting Bashar Assad against those fighting his family’s 40-plus years of autocratic rule. Last week, the U.N. estimated the two-year conflict has killed 93,000 people. “About 10% of the casualties that are being imposed on the Syrian opposition are occurring through the use of air power,” Army General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, estimated in late April. “The other 90% are by direct fire or by artillery.”

The relatively small impact of imposing a no-fly zone could be the beginning of a slippery slope, Dempsey warned. “The question then becomes, if you eliminate one capability of a potential adversary,” he wondered, “will you be inclined to find yourself in a position to be asked to do more against the rest?”


General Dempsey has also clarified the no-fly nonsense for SecState Kerry:
Pentagon Shoots Down Kerry’s Syria Airstrike Plan

Dempsey informed Kerry that the Air Force could not simply drop a few bombs, or fire a few missiles, at targets inside Syria: To be safe, the U.S. would have to neutralize Syria’s integrated air-defense system, an operation that would require 700 or more sorties. At a time when the U.S. military is exhausted, and when sequestration is ripping into the Pentagon budget, Dempsey is said to have argued that a demand by the State Department for precipitous military action in a murky civil war wasn’t welcome.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21, 2013 3:26:02 PM | 16

I really don't expect the Russians to throw Assad under the bus - especially when he's winning.

The position of the Russian government has been that it's up to the Syrian people to decide the fate of Assad at the ballot box. They have remained steadfast on this and I really don't see any evidence of this changing. I don't see any deal that NATO can possibly "offer" Russia when their proxies are losing on the ground, especially when we also consider that NATO has a terrible habit of sticking it to Russia (NATO expansion, Missile shield, Libya, etc;).

I don't think the Geneva talks will amount to much as things stand - and that's considering that they even happen. One of the reasons why the west keeps pushing the date back, is that they're hoping that the rebels will be able to regain some lost ground or at least hold on to what they already have. The more the rebels lose, the more the west will likely keep pushing the date back in the hope that things will change on the ground in their favor. This is why we have certain US politicians calling for a no-fly zone so they can shift momentum to the rebels, but this will only prompt an angry reaction from Russia, who make no mistake, probably have a contingency plan of their own up their sleeve.

Posted by: RC | Jun 21, 2013 4:07:47 PM | 17

The "level playing field" theory assumes that Russia, Iran and Hezbollah -- as well as Syria -- will do nothing new. Of course that is not possible. Nevertheless Kerry will use it this weekend in trying to get the SNC to agree to attend Geneva II. That's the purpose of the new arms shipments, after all, as an SNC inducement to get their act together(good luck on that). The chemical thing, without even any proof offered, was a bogus excuse.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21, 2013 4:10:01 PM | 18

Geneva II has been delayed because the SNC has refused to attend.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21, 2013 4:11:45 PM | 19

I don't think we are in an epoch of status quo.We have an empire in decline and a multipolar world in the making.This is a moment long awaited by all the ones who had to suffer from the empire.Remember the suffering of Russia in the nineties ,I don't think they will miss this opportunity simply because maintaining now a status quo means giving time to the West to take a huge breath and continue unabated in organizing and creating chaos all over the world.Syria in this battle is taking all the weight of this epical battle though there are other countries under the radar who are witnessing the same struggle .
Russia and the Brics cannot accept the not so subtile game of dismissing Assad and maintaining the same structure in power because their counter strategy to the west has been all along International Law and the Un charter e.g. respect of sovereignty and will of the people in every country.It is their response to R2P and all the illegal adventures inaugurated after the fall of the USSR.This strategy started in Syria and because of Assad steadfastness and the betrayal of the UnSc in Lybia has proven itself to be very effective.By the way this is also the iranian strategy.Once and for all the west CANNOT decide anymore who is to stay and who is to be expandable.Knowing the syrian state structure I doubt the army and government will agree to such an infantile game,he goes we stay.....

Posted by: Nobody | Jun 21, 2013 4:30:00 PM | 20

Basic goods, including some basic foods, have started disappearing from shops in Syria during the last week because of (1) consumers' and traders' recent intention to hoard goods in anticipation of further steep price inflation, plus (2) the effects of the Syrian government's restriction on foreign currency financing for imports.

Following the U.S. White House's decision to arm the rebels (announced on 13 Jun 2013), there was a significant drop in the exchange rate of the Syrian Lira (SYP) in the unofficial currency market. In reaction, many Syrians went to shops to buy goods in expectation that the currency's depreciation would accelerate overall price inflation. Syria is experiencing serious general price inflation. Unofficial estimates are that general prices have more than doubled during the first five months of calendar year 2013 (official estimates are not available, afaik). On 20 Jun 2013 Syria's Al-Watan daily newspaper reported that the price of eggs has gone up sharply and sell now at 15 SYP per egg; http://www.alwatan.sy/view.aspx?id=2657 . The official exchange rate is US$ 1 = SYP 100; €1 = 132 SYP; UK£1 = SYP 155. At that official exchange rate, buying an egg in Syria involves an outlay of cash about equal to what you'd outlay in a Western country. Which tells you the official exchange rate is unsustainable and will be depreciated. A few days ago the Syrian Central Bank claimed the exchange rate in the unofficial market was "illogical". But it looks instead that the Syrian Central Bank's official rate is "illogical" -- illogically failing to reflect the inflation of general prices.

On 20 Jun 2013 the Syrian al-Thawra daily newspaper quoted a source at the Syrian economy ministry saying that Syrian shops will witness a shortage of goods and a dramatic rise in prices due to the delay in importing goods; http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-06/21/c_124887519.htm . This "delay" is due to the government's restriction on foreign currency financing for imports, which is due to the government's desire to curtail imports, which in turn seems to be due to the government's desire to retain foreign currency reserves in the country, in turn intended to defend the exchange rate of the SYP, in turn intended to counteract the upward pressure on general prices, in turn enabling the government to issue more money -- but since the government and the Central Bank have not been very transparent about what they think they're doing, I can't be sure about what's intended and what's unintended.

It can be said for sure that price inflation has become a serious problem for the Syrian government.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Jun 21, 2013 4:55:06 PM | 21

Basic goods, including some basic foods, have started disappearing from shops in Syria during the last week because of (1) consumers' and traders' recent intention to hoard goods in anticipation of further steep price inflation, plus (2) the effects of the Syrian government's restriction on foreign currency financing for imports.

Following the U.S. White House's decision to arm the rebels (announced on 13 Jun 2013), there was a significant drop in the exchange rate of the Syrian Lira (SYP) in the unofficial currency market. In reaction, many Syrians went to shops to buy goods in expectation that the currency's depreciation would accelerate overall price inflation. Syria is experiencing serious general price inflation. Unofficial estimates are that general prices have more than doubled during the first five months of calendar year 2013 (official estimates are not available, afaik). On 20 Jun 2013 Syria's Al-Watan daily newspaper reported that the price of eggs has gone up sharply and sell now at 15 SYP per egg; http://www.alwatan.sy/view.aspx?id=2657 . The official exchange rate is US$ 1 = SYP 100; €1 = 132 SYP; UK£1 = SYP 155. At that official exchange rate, buying an egg in Syria involves an outlay of cash about equal to what you'd outlay in a Western country. Which tells you the official exchange rate is unsustainable and will be depreciated. A few days ago the Syrian Central Bank claimed the exchange rate in the unofficial market was "illogical". But it looks instead that the Syrian Central Bank's official rate is "illogical" -- illogically failing to reflect the inflation of general prices.

On 20 Jun 2013 the Syrian al-Thawra daily newspaper quoted a source at the Syrian economy ministry saying that Syrian shops will witness a shortage of goods and a dramatic rise in prices due to the delay in importing goods; http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-06/21/c_124887519.htm . This "delay" is due to the government's restriction on foreign currency financing for imports, which is due to the government's desire to curtail imports, which in turn seems to be due to the government's desire to retain foreign currency reserves in the country, in turn intended to defend the exchange rate of the SYP, in turn intended to counteract the upward pressure on general prices, in turn enabling the government to issue more money -- but since the government and the Central Bank have not been very transparent about what they think they're doing, I can't be sure about what's intended and what's unintended.

It can be said for sure that price inflation has become a serious problem for the Syrian government.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Jun 21, 2013 4:55:06 PM | 22

The arabs are under attack and have been for some time.the wolves are circling using existing divisions to drive the war.russia and china are being forced to show there hands -hence the human trafficing accusations.the prize will be the arab oil fields and secondly arab water resources.

Posted by: jub | Jun 21, 2013 6:54:32 PM | 23

The number of Syrian refugees in Lebanon continues to grow. The UNHCR is registering about 3,000 new people per day in Lebanon. 23,000 Syrian refugees were newly registered in Lebanon by the UNHCR in the week ended 21 June 2013. 53% of the Syrian refugees in Lebanon are less than 18 years of age. Among adults, about 50% are men and 50% are women. Families are moving to Lebanon because it's too unsafe where they live in Syria. Homs Province is the source of 30% of the registered Syrian refugees in Lebanon. Aleppo Province and Idlib Province are the source of 16% each, Outer Damascus Province 12%, Hama Province 7%, Daraa Province 6%, and other provinces less.
http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/download.php?id=2250 ,
http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=122 ,
http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

Although the UNHCR doesn't say so, most of the Syrian refugees in Lebanon are politically either pro-government or else not pro-rebel. So their continuing growth is a sign that the Syrian government is continuing to fail in its efforts to restore law and order.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Jun 21, 2013 7:44:23 PM | 24

well said @6 jawbone. in the early years Obama was a blank slate capable of absorbing and reflecting all the hopeful projections of a browbeat populace, but that slate has accumulated too many contradictory actions, and for even the most mildly discerning supporters, continued support in the coming years will become increasingly difficult to rationally justify.

Posted by: lizard | Jun 21, 2013 8:00:41 PM | 25

zusa is negotiating with the Talibans (while being ambushed and bombed by them), zusa failed big in Syria ... yet, quite many can't let go their habit to consider zusa being important.

According to zusa polls, 70% of americans are against a Syria adventure, and even more do not trust their politicians. Yet many can't let go their habit to consider "news" and "opinions" in zusa media at least not being completely irrelevant.

zusa's wish to someday leave Afghanistan is depending on either the Taliban letting them escape or Iran helping them to escape. Both options are extremely unattractive (to zusa) and both options as well as the reality on ground proove that zusa has failed and lost that war.

OK, let's look at Syria.

The terrorists problems, no matter what they and their sponsors like us to believe, is *not* a lack of weapons; it is them not being united and sometimes even fighting each other, it is the complete lack of any common, reasonable and achievable goal, it is their almost complete lack of citizens support (which SAA enjoys), and it is their lack of military quality in more than one regard.

About the only otion the terrorist sponsors have left is to provide more powerful weapons - which basically is a non-option for (at least) two reasons.
For one, the bigger (and therefore more complex) the weapons are, the more training, discipline and (at least) tactical coordination is required; none of which can be easily and quickly aquired and most of which actually is basically unattainable by the terrorists. At the same time those are classical qualities of a concentional military and sending those weapons would actually turn out to be more to the SAA's advantage than to the terrorists.
Second, those terrorists and their weapons won't stay in Syria. Not ignoring the fact that the terrorists feel - and have been - betrayed by their sponsors, both those terrorists and their weapons are more than likely to be met again and turning against their sponsors (and be it only by selling those weapons to other terrorist groups or, in the case of e.g. al nusra, passing them on to their "brothers").

Those who think that Putin can somehow be made an irresistable offer are wrong. For a simple reason: zusa isn't in the required position. Maybe, possibly, theoretically, such an approach might have worked 10 years ago when Russia lay shattered and zusa still was in power.

The only attractive offer that zusa could make were to quietly retreat from the global stage - and that is counter to zusa's desperate attempts to at least keep the *image* of an important nation alive.

Putins options are not about making deals with zusa, they are to let them bleed out (cheap but time consuming and with ugly noise along the path to oblivion) or to crush them (attractive and quite desirable but expensive)

And - as if the world needed more proof for zusa being primitive, stupid scum - it looks as if zusa herself almost pushed Putin towards the latter option. Well, I for one won't complain.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jun 21, 2013 8:04:02 PM | 26

@ b and Penny#1: Thanks as always, for the wonderful work you do on Syria. Thanks also to all the folks who provide links. The NATO/Zionists and Globalists are like a pit bull with Syria, they refuse to let go. Hopefully, Russia will act just as resolute. This struggle against the globalists is sooo important.

Posted by: ben | Jun 21, 2013 8:07:57 PM | 27

Obama has never supplied and trained anti-Syria forces until now because it has been done secretly by the CIA and is therefore deniable.

The Special Activities Division (SAD) is the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) covert paramilitary operations unit. They are one of America's most secretive and lowest profile special ops organizations.

Special Activities Division typically carry out deniable covert operations on foreign soil. CIA Special Operations Group Paramilitiaries are trained in sabotage, personnel and material recovery, kidnapping, bomb damage assessment, hostage rescue and counter terrorism.

SAD Ground Branch operatives are experts in field craft, surveillance, small arms, hostage rescue, CQB and advanced driving. Many former Army Special Forces soldiers and Delta Force operators find their way into Ground Branch.


--So if something secret and nasty is going on, it's probably SAD. And it has nothing to do with intelligence, however you look at it.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21, 2013 8:11:51 PM | 28

@23 'Although the UNHCR doesn't say so, most of the Syrian refugees in Lebanon are politically either pro-government or else not pro-rebel. So their continuing growth is a sign that the Syrian government is continuing to fail in its efforts to restore law and order.'

Or maybe they are leaving so that the jihadis won't have civilians to hide behind.

Posted by: dh | Jun 21, 2013 8:14:49 PM | 29

--and to add to what Mr Pharma wrote, not only are the anti-Syria forces disorganized, but they have absolutely no ties to, or recognition of, the Syria National Coalition which Kerry is currently trying to get organized and attending a conference. So it's a fool's gambit orchestrated (or merely permitted) by the head fool Obama, as b as indicated.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21, 2013 8:18:53 PM | 30

At this point most Syrians (as in Afghanistan) are probably not pro-anything, they just want to live in peace and feed their families.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21, 2013 8:21:17 PM | 31

"Those who think that Putin can somehow be made an irresistable offer are wrong."

Yes. Not sure how someone can suggest there is any leverage to be brought against Syria or Russia.

The Syrian Army is absolutely crushing the mishmash of foreign mercenaries and jihadis that were armed, funded, and sent off to Syria by the US, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

Hezbollah is securing the Lebanon border.

Iraq has moved troops up to secure their border with Syria.

Damascus to Al-Qusayr and most of the territory up to Aleppo has been secured with pockets of foreign fighters that are essentially doing nothing other than waiting to be taken out by the non-frontline Syrian forces.

Aleppo is systematically being surrounded and cutoff from resupply and reinforcements.

Despite all these maps that show huge sections of green held territory North of Al-Qusayr up to the Turkish border, the Syrian forces appear to be able to move their forces almost at will.

The NATO bombing campaign appears to be a non-starter.

If the foreign mercenaries and jihadis were functional as a military force they would have long before Al-Qusayr was purged opened a new front or area of attack to draw the Syrian forces away from the city and allow either reinforcements to arrive or at the very least most of the foreign fighters to escape to fight another day. Instead nothing but a few truckloads of crazies tried to get into Al-Qusayr that were quickly taken out.

The goes for Aleppo. The foreign fighters are once again being encircled day by day and there is no counter offensive or new front opened up elsewhere in the country to try to counter the attack by the SAA.

Ideally the SAA will finish the encirclement of the foreign fighters in Aleppo and slowly corral them into smaller and smaller sections of the city. And just leave them there while the SAA secures the rest of the North. No reason to destroy large parts of Aleppo. Best case once the foreign fighers see they are completely cutoff from their supply lines and any hope of reinforcements that large numbers of them will surrender with the promise of a ticket out of the country and let the Saudis or Qataries deal with their battle hardened jihadis.

If the SAA can finish up Aleppo this conflict no longer is an existential threat to Syria and moves into a mop up phase where the foreign fighters and jihadists are source of terrorism but no longer any serious military threat.

Posted by: Addison | Jun 21, 2013 8:44:15 PM | 32

Perhaps someone could help me locate a quote. I recently read or saw Assad saying that he had negotiated contracts for Syrian reconstruction with the Chinese. I thought that it was in the Frankfurter interview, but I can't find it there. Was it in a recent English interview?

I know that recently, the French have been in Lebanon trying to get the financial community behind their efforts to cash in on reconstruction in Syria. Franklin Lamb is talking about neocons in Washington wanting to promote a Halliburtonized "Marshall Plan" for Syria (the involvement of Treasury's special Zionist sanctions office does not bode well):

an 18 month old US-led Plan B has been dusted off by the Obama administration according to Washington Congressional and Beirut diplomatic sources. If successful, there is growing confidence among pro-Zionist neocons in Congress that while Syrian regime-change has failed for several reasons that thwarted the Gulf funded military campaign, Syria can still be brought to heel through an economic campaign dressed to look, well, down right “humanitarian.”

The term "equivalent of the Marshall Plan" is being employed by some in the White House and Pentagon this month to describe a proposed large-scale “humanitarian rescue program” being prepared for Syria, according to some Western diplomats based in Lebanon.

However, the 1948 Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program or ERP) was an American program to aid Europe, through which the United States provided $ 13 billion, in today’s monetary terms, approximately 100 billion dollars of economic support, to help rebuild European economies devastated by war.

With respect to Syria, the “ equivalent of the Marshall Plan" currently being finalized is very different from what General George |C. Marshall explained to his Harvard University audience, 66 years ago this month, when he announced the post WW II initiative.

The already project Syria amounts to 19th century economic imperialism as a means to achieve control of Syria by hijacking its economy while shielding Israel from the rising tide of protests in this region, as armed groups across the spectrum are beginning to focus on directly confronting the Zionist theft and continuing occupation of Palestine.

What Washington has in mind constitutes an attempt to gain control over Syria by controlling its economy via contracts for rebuilding the country and “lending” the hoped for post-Assad Syrian government as much as 300 billion dollars to be secured by Syrian assets. IMF economists estimate the value of the public sector in Syria, exceeds half a trillion dollars. Under the US-led pan, creditors can take control of ownership of the public sector, if Syria accepts the plan for pledges to secure debt. The buyers of the debt will be largely American and indirectly Israeli businessmen as well as from the Gulf. Qatar specifically is gambling on this plan, to work with “international parties”, to immerse Syria in debt, and then drive the country to sell the private sector at a very small fraction of their true values.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jun 21, 2013 9:28:37 PM | 33

The Globe and Mail

UN warns more arms in Syria mean more war crimes

Arming Syrians fighting on either side of the country’s bloody conflict could lead to more war crimes, the head of the UN commission investigating human rights abuses in Syria warned Friday.

Paulo Pinheiro stopped short of directly criticizing the United States or other nations arming Syrians, saying the commission does not comment on decisions by governments. But his remarks came about a week after President Barack Obama authorized sending weapons to rebels for the first time.


So the United Nations doesn't discriminate between states acting in self-defense and their foreign attackers. That's illegally even-handed, treating governments and their foreign attackers equally, and is a violation of the UN Charter.
To maintain international peace and security,
# All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
# All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21, 2013 9:34:52 PM | 34

China is winning, it sits on the sideline and does not spend while sitting, when the dust settles it puts cash on the table, not programmes and democracy, rules and clauses, they did this in Africa (Still are) with success. Likewise it does not need to deal with the 'clean-up' or is it accountable and go through those motions.

Not going to get all PC about this, that’s just pissing in the wind -Welcome to the Welfare Caliphate built by the US’s injected Welfare and Jihad of Europe. Gang of 8′s ‘guest worker plan’, led to non-workers bankrupting the social welfare system, and many other social issues for both sides. To mitigate this time around, they intend to keep 3.5 million refugees in regions that can’t sustain 3.5 million refugees, never mind their respective populations.

Once in Turkey, many will migrate into better EU territories, pretty much just as they did from Kosovo; and why? Bugger me, I would! Much like this scenario; Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are not the best ‘providers’ or human rights followers, the refugees will be outcasts, or for that matter the latter two just won’t have any unless it’s for pleasure, a personal slave, or a PR office if you’re a hardcore terror group (Irrelevant on how you sprung up) and can be used for some other plot.

Not being rude, but 80% or higher of refugees do not become ‘normal’ members of society, or will they have ‘regular’ or any employment. Every couple will have children, the numbers will double, triple, crime will rise in tandem, both crime by syndicates they have created and crimes against them.

We can’t blame the refugee; in the same shoes we would ‘all’ do the same.
However we can blame the US for destabilizing the EU, and weak EU leaders for accepting ‘Waging War’ for its own (US) needs, and further adding to social unrest, we can blame Nato for adding risk.

Idea -Nato should Go sort out Mexico and sort US boarders, US needs the help…

Q. So USRAP, will you take on the 3.5 million and provide visa’s because you care? A. Hell No!

Posted by: kev | Jun 21, 2013 10:07:13 PM | 35

@ Rusty Pipes

Perhaps someone could help me locate a quote. I recently read or saw Assad saying that he had negotiated contracts for Syrian reconstruction with the Chinese. I thought that it was in the Frankfurter interview, but I can't find it there. Was it in a recent English interview?

It seems to be from an interview Assad did on June 10th for Al Akhbar the quote in question:

As for reconstruction, he went on, Chinese companies are prepared to carry out the task and they have agreed on everything in this regard.

He also mentions that he turned down 21 Billion dollars in reconstruction offered by the World Bank.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jun 21, 2013 10:15:05 PM | 36

The purpose of Geneva II is to implement the Action Group for Syria Final Communiqué -- 30.06.2012

UN, Jun 30, 2012

The establishment of a transitional governing body which can establish a neutral environment in which the transition can take place. That means that the transitional governing body would exercise full executive powers. It could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent.

**transitional governing body** -- therein lies the firm US expectation that Bashar Assad will be dumped, whereas Russia sees -- what? Even Assad doesn't know the answer to that, except he seems good to last. I don't think that Russia has defined what it wants in a "transitional governing body."

And then there is the aforementioned disconnect between the SNC and the fighting groups. Al-Nusrah cares nothing about Geneva, I'm sure.

The only sure answer to this conundrum is for Assad to fully take Aleppo, which he seems to be working on. Go Bashar.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21, 2013 10:27:25 PM | 37

Ramin Khosravi Also see: ****conference of 7 + Russia****
backstage and cellars Belfast ......................

The Conference began with a lesson in morality by Putin where he said:
you are all supporting Al-Qaeda and among which there are TAKFIRI Chechen mer...cenaries expiatory are who committed massacres in the Moscow Opera and you want Russia to help you. You sent weapons to those who killed Russians and you claim that they are for freedom and people's rights .. and the fact that listeners dont understand morals except only according to their interests, the lesson was appended with the :following observations

1- who wants to to be involved in Syria, let us look to Turkey and take lessons.

2- the Syrians and their allies, the Iranians and the Lebanese resistance and all arabs on the resistance camp, have given Russia the message that says: AlASSAD in Syria or a regional war that will destroy everyone..Russians gave me a message that if Syria was attacked, Russia will fight side by side with the Syrians.

3- the Syrians have very important & dangerous documents on the mercenaries who are ready to implement any request from the Syrian Government in return for those documents, it was leaked to me that Europe will be in danger of these terrorists very soon.
about an hour ago ·

Posted by: brian | Jun 21, 2013 10:48:20 PM | 38

a jihadi is someone who thinks he is fighting in his gods name (eg the cannibal)
so an exjihadi is asked what he thinks of jihad on syria...and says bmore truths thany ou will find in any MSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtIMM5MVk-o
fellow raises obvious question why is there no jihad against israel? also one of the few to note the jihadis are being manipulated by the US / quotes Chomsky: 'Democacy is an illusion we use to deceive people' once the goal of removing Assad is achieved, USrael will; bring in its puppets and those who fought the war will be called terrorists..there use now being at an end

Posted by: brian | Jun 21, 2013 10:48:42 PM | 39

So their continuing growth is a sign that the Syrian government is continuing to fail in its efforts to restore law and order.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Jun 21, 2013 7:44:23 PM | 23

so long as stupid jihadis are ready willing and able to fight and die for USrael there will be no order

Posted by: brian | Jun 21, 2013 10:51:01 PM | 40


EU diplomat: "It would be the first conflict where we pretend we could create peace by delivering arms" http://ind.pn/17teDlZ #Syria #R2P

Posted by: brian | Jun 21, 2013 10:58:20 PM | 41


@Don Bacon | Jun 21, 2013 10:27:25 PM | 36 That would also place the mission dynamics as the UN being the 'interim Gov' as in Kosovo - A Chapter VII resolution. Bugger me Kosovo mission took a decade where the output was coffee shops a dysfunctional power supply (KEK) a comedy US trained police force, a who's who of dodgy PM's, (Thaci the snake, Ramush the bouncer) bar one Dr, Rexhepi I feel was decent, and the EU taking it over (RoL) with the US having it's largest Military base, Bondsteel at the time and still is in place. Well a decade later still in limbo as to status.

Although, Syria model would look like the success of Iraq or even Libya; I am sure the citizens are looking forward to that pleasure. UN staff are happy, the recent downsizing now looks to have a silver lining. I might just pop along and open a Bar/Coffee shop near the HQ, a quick way to make a million, call it something catchy like ‘The Phoenix Bar’ happy days!

If Russia has made concessions (Deal) and I am sure it has made a pitch, it would be in the mission Org structure and decides who does what. I am sure the US would be limited in function if it agreed. Russia would undertake the RoL and even recommend China as Police. Likewise it would want Energy and Boarders (Blue/Green and Air) roles with a Russian head of mission and handle the military apparatus. However I can’t see this flying and may agree to let certain ‘partners’ within those pillars or it will Veto.

Then this would still allow elections at some point, although this could take years and in general 'someone/entity' is steered into power, normally a weak option to allow the mission extensions tends to the normal MO. i.e. Ramush in Kos, did his bit (A few month in office) to keep the 'Will of the people happy' then off to the Hague; all political games, but still made millions with his bogus MBA as PM and French connections.

What is concerning, and why I draw on a Kosovo model, Some fear (Or want) Syria that will eventually split into a number of different fiefdoms, creating the possibility that the borders of surrounding countries may also be redrawn. A very ‘British’ strategy, decentralize power and keep infighting. Israel has been particularly unnerved by the collapse of stability in the Golan Heights, and I am sure the US is pushing for it to have that slice of the pie, you never know, that could also be a agreement to resolve the settlements issue, ‘give me this and I give you that’, and the rewards epic, ZUSA has solved the Issue.

If you look at it, we know the players via the "3B" meetings have taken place regularly over the last two years. The meetings are named after the three participants: UN and Arab league envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov and its overshadowed by the ‘Rule of Jew’, a the yiddish version of 'Murphy's Law'.

Posted by: kev | Jun 21, 2013 11:42:38 PM | 42

Although the UNHCR doesn't say so, most of the Syrian refugees in Lebanon are politically either pro-government or else not pro-rebel. So their continuing growth is a sign that the Syrian government is continuing to fail in its efforts to restore law and order.
Posted by: Parviziyi | Jun 21, 2013 7:44:23 PM | 23

I'm not saying you're wrong but do you not think it's possible that people who are pro-Govt (or not anti-Govt) have been advised to get out so the Govt can do "what needs to be done" without putting innocents at risk? A free hand at implementing a Scorched Earth policy will greatly speed up victory over the 'rebels' (imo).
(b might like to offer an opinion...)

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 22, 2013 1:05:32 AM | 43

Posted by: kev | Jun 21, 2013 11:42:38 PM | 40

and its overshadowed by the ‘Rule of Jew’,

every now and then an asshole will pop up on this site and make a nasty "jew" comment

kinda like a fart or burp-but thats alright because while you are calling attention to the little dog the big dogs are killing off the opposition while hiding behind the little dogs ass."the fog of war" some call it but i like to call it ..................."DOG FART".....................

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dog%20Fart


p.s. there are over 1 million russians living in israel-all of them "jews"

Posted by: jub | Jun 22, 2013 1:06:05 AM | 44

Just a thought ... but it seems to me that the catalyst for this renewed barrage of balderdash from the West and it's Media lackeys was Hezbollah's declaration of interest in the conflict. Hezbollah quickly and decisively humiliated the local Superpower (LOL) in 2006. Only Hezbollah knows, with any certainty, its own strength and the resources it can contribute. Everyone else is just guessing.

Judging by the idiocy, wishful thinking, and desperation reflected in the West's fanciful and impotent frothings, I'm guessing that when Obama asked Bibi "What can you tell me about this Hezbollah outfit?" Bibi replied "Your 'rebels' are fucked!"
And when Bibi asked Obama "What can you tell me about this Putin outfit?" Obama replied "We're fucked too!"

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 22, 2013 1:34:22 AM | 45

jub (44)

So, mentioning anything related to "jew" makes one a (supposedly "anti-semitic") asshole?

Well, the "jewish state" (their designation, not mine - oops, I said the j-word; does that automagically make me an asshole, too?) just so happens to have engaged in crime, mass murder and terrorism since it has been existing.

But, of course, I guess saying that puts me on the "anti-semitic" side. Well, how about rewording the above statement as "Well, the country with a blue david star ..."? Would that be fine?
Or maybe, if I reworded it as "Well, the shitty little country ..." Would that be O.K.? Would that be not-anti-semitic?

And how about names? Is it O.K. to state obvious facts like "Astonishingly - and unproportionally - many of the major figures in banking and politics and other crime branches have names like 'feinstein','blankfein','rosenberg', or 'goldblum'"? Or is merely stating known facts "anti-semitic" and makes one an asshole, too, if the facts stated do not please the citizens and friends of the state that calls itself the jewish state while labelling non-jews "anti-semitic" or "asshole" for calling that state by its name?

To show some good will I'll gladly call it "the criminal state of mass murderers and assholes" if that pleases you better.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jun 22, 2013 2:17:12 AM | 46

@Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 22, 2013 1:34:22 AM | 45Bugger me playing the Jew card! Keep it in context at least.

Dog Fart; Urban Dictionary : The act of an African American man having sex with a caucasian woman. Also referred to as BDWC – HS, your being the 'Drama Queen', and a PC bender; ‘Rule of Jew’ is a pun on Israel’s aspirations and all too often bending the Rule of Law, and it does, take the settlements, as much as Murphy’s Law allows the fact that ‘Shit happens’; Israel does influence the US as well as in many cases overstepping the US, hence the quip.

What relevance does 1 million Russian Jews in Israel have to do with the price of bread? I just don’t get your animal thing you got going on, A ‘horse whisperer’ and “the little dog the big dogs are killing off the opposition while hiding behind the little dogs ass." the fog of war” What on earth are you gibbering about, stop being anal and petty - Political correctness is the scourge of society and generally used by people who have issues – "If it walks like a Duck…..."

Posted by: kev | Jun 22, 2013 2:28:43 AM | 47

@Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 22, 2013 1:34:22 AM | 45 - My bad, that (Post47) was directed at "jub" please forgive my little rant, small phone screen when writing. Used the 'Animal' ref as the Dog thing just flicked my switch as it was pointless. Sorry again, my mistake...

Posted by: kev | Jun 22, 2013 2:33:27 AM | 48

My guess is once Assad goes (and Russia is going to sell him out) they pick a Baathist secular military figure and crush the Jihadist types. That way NATO gets rid of Assad and also the Jihadists but without the collapsing state starting a region wide War. Russia would also save face since it keeps the Pro-Russian Baathist system, keeps its Tartus base, stops any spillage into Russia's borders.

My guess is that Russia will agree to drop Assad on the condition it can engineer his successor within the Syrian Arab Army. NATO will agree for no other reason than to save face and because it is the only option for ousting Assad that they have. Assad will probably be able to go into exile in Moscow or Tehran with his millions.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jun 21, 2013 1:24:47 PM | 8

go where?
youd think this talk of 'ousting' a head of state would receive a bit more criticism

Posted by: brian | Jun 22, 2013 2:48:06 AM | 49

More evidence that Obama and Hollance is lying on chemical weapons.

"UN rejects US claim on Syria chemical weapons"

http://presstv.com/detail/2013/06/21/310199/un-rejects-us-claim-on-syria-cw/

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 22, 2013 3:32:59 AM | 50

Assad arent going to leave power, thats nonsense, you think when US/UK/France/EU think of bombing Syria and while they arm terrorists inside Syria that syrian government is going to give up? Give me a break.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 22, 2013 4:28:41 AM | 51

"Assad arent going to leave power, thats nonsense, you think when US/UK/France/EU think of bombing Syria and while they arm terrorists inside Syria that syrian government is going to give up? Give me a break."

Indeed.

Unless President Assad decides not to run again, it is most likely that he will be in office long after the current group of war criminals arming the foreign mercenaries and terrorists that have invaded Syria are out of power. With President Assad's 70 percent approval by Syrians he is certainly to easily win reelection to one more seven year term in office.

Posted by: Addison | Jun 22, 2013 4:44:50 AM | 52

Kev

automagically......i do not mind a well expressed "effing jews" but the snide low level snivel "jew" says more about you than me.
tell you what, here is a history lesson about the golan and syria

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_Tears

Posted by: jub | Jun 22, 2013 4:54:26 AM | 53

@Yentl #53 - It was partly driven since Israel's rejection of Sadat's peace initiative, which had proposed a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-67 borders in exchange for a non-belligerency pac. Your version is simply Israel and Syria, you have seemed to omitted it was led by Egypt, and Egyptian–Syrian–Jordanian alliance and a wee bit deeper, US and Russia - Have you decided to change history, or is this the expansion of ‘RoJ’?

Try this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights it give a more robust history.

FYI: Jew - A member of the people and cultural community whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins through the ancient… etc and in Kev’s Urban Dictionary RoJ (Rule of Jew): Altering International Law to suits one own need’s by Jews. Here are a few of those such violations just to validate such wild accusations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements
http://israellawresourcecenter.org/internationallaw/studyguides/sgil3.htm

So let me get this straight, in all the blog trail that articulates many dubious ‘actions’ against Syria like paid outside insurgents linked to terror groups and the support of terrorism funded by various countries, Qatar, the US, France etc to remove Assad from power. In recent weeks, however, Israel has moved from relative inaction to a deepening involvement in Syrian affairs. It launched two air strikes on Syrian positions last month, and at the same time fomented claims that Damascus had used chemical weapons, in what looked suspiciously like an attempt to corner Washington into direct intervention. In closed-door discussions, analyst Ben Caspit has noted, the Israeli army has put forward as its "optimal scenario" Syria breaking up into three separate states, with Assad confined to an Alawite canton in Damascus and along the coast.

When Tony Blair and John McCain, right-wing U.S. Republicans, along with Rupert Murdoch's Times, are the voices for greater intervention in Syria, then you know there's nothing humanitarian about it.

In that all you can do is target a quip ‘Rule of Jew’ as your sole focus; something tells me your priorities are amiss or you are just playing the ‘Jew card’ and screaming for attention.

Posted by: kev | Jun 22, 2013 6:10:52 AM | 54

just saw
this
(yes I know the Debaka is not the best source)
could it really be Russian pressure? or is it to please the Turkish citizens?

Posted by: simon | Jun 22, 2013 7:27:13 AM | 55

Posted by: kev | Jun 22, 2013 6:10:52 AM

"target a quip ‘Rule of Jew’"

thanks kev thats all for now

Posted by: jub | Jun 22, 2013 8:21:56 AM | 56

more people need to see this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QIMucHfUMyg#at=90

Clare Daly pwns the Yanks, big time!

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 22, 2013 10:26:43 AM | 57

I believe that there is a tendency to over-complicate these situations, and as a part of that, to ascribe motives and intelligence to state actors that they don't have. For example, the U.S. has been completely unsuccessful at doing anything on Syria except to make the situation worse and to look absolutely foolish, as b indicates above. Kiribati Drowns? Bomb Syria!

And so with Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, who a year ago bought the koolaid that Assad wouldn't endure and agreed to a "transition government." That mistake got him into a lot of diplomatic trouble, because the obvious take on "transition government" is "regime change." In light of events Lavrov has re-appraised the situation and is is trying to back away from regime change to Assad's position of 2014 elections. In other words, Assad as head of state is setting the parameters, as he should do when faced by a foreign-supported anti-government forces.

So Assad says: Let the pompous fumblers and mumblers posture and demand and speculate, and try in vain to find any credible alternative to my presidency, and meanwhile I'll perform my constitutional duties with increased support from Russia which has now reformed its position (because it had to).

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 22, 2013 10:55:51 AM | 58

@ Ruralito

Clare Daly pwns the Yanks, big time!

Yeah this speech has been getting a lot of play in Ireland. For some context Clare Daly is part of the United Left Alliance in North Dublin. What happened was Obama and his family traveled to Belfast in Northern Ireland for the G8 summit. During the trip Obama spoke to an auditorium of high school students and proceeded to lecture them, at some length, on the need for peace including the line "Anyone who chooses the side of peace I assure you America will always support you. We will be the wind on your back". This on the same day Obama was meeting with the G8 heads to pressure Putin on the war in Syria.

Luckily most of the main politicians in Northern Ireland (who know more than a bit about sectarian violence) came out with a statements opposed to arming the rebels saying "sending in more weapons, never ends bloodshed".

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jun 22, 2013 11:04:36 AM | 59

@Colm O, it gave me shivers. Nothing like watching a speaker in full control of her material pouring out her heart. It's like porn, but for the mind!

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 22, 2013 11:52:23 AM | 60

The U.S.move to publicly arm anti-Syria forces had nothing to do with chemical weapons and is meant to give a psychological boost to the de-energized, leaderless Syria opposition.

The official called the Qatar meeting critical as the opposition Syrian National Coalition was examining its leadership amid concerns in Washington that fighters battling Assad lack cohesion and direction.

"This is all in support of energizing, re-energizing, the Syrian opposition coalition leadership to work to select its leadership," the official said on condition of anonymity.


US-appointed "Prime Minister" Ghassan Hitto, long-time resident of Murphy, Texas, has not been able to form a provisional government in exile since being appointed on March 19, over three months ago. Hey, but these new weapons going to terrorists in Syria will energize him, no doubt.
“Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 22, 2013 11:59:23 AM | 61

@61 I'm glad you mentioned Ghassan Hitto because he hasn't been getting much press lately. He needs to make a flying visit to Aleppo to rally the troops.

Posted by: dh | Jun 22, 2013 12:09:29 PM | 62

@dh
Yes, I can see it now, Hitto in (East) Aleppo, energizing the terrorists, as they look up and say: "Who the hell is that? I've never before heard a Syrian with a Texas accent. Let's eat his lungs."

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 22, 2013 12:13:23 PM | 63

Re: "weapons" and "arms" to Syria
State, yesterday

QUESTION: A spokesman for the Free Syrian Army, the military opposition, said that they received some modern weapons. Is any of these weapons from the U.S.?

MR. VENTRELL: Well, again, we’ve talked about, and you heard last week as the White House discussed, how the President’s redline has been crossed and that we’re going to be ramping up our support to the opposition. I’m not in a position to get into the details of some of that, but suffice it to say we’ll continue our support for the opposition. I’m just not going to be able to confirm the details on that one way or another.


Notice what they say, because they consider it carefully. It's "support" and not weapons nor arms, and they're "just not going to be able to confirm the details on that one way or another."

Yahoo News, Jun 14

Will Obama send (more) Americans to Syria?

The White House announcement that President Barack Obama has decided to provide direct military aid to Syria’s rebels didn’t include the word “arms.” And the word “weapons” appears only as part of “chemical weapons,” as in “our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons.”

In fact, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, who detailed the decision on a conference call with reporters late Thursday, repeatedly declined their invitation to detail what, exactly, Washington is sending to try to tip the balance in the opposition’s favor. . .

What if the White House's new strategic vagueness aims to hide the fact that Obama is looking at sending more Americans to Syria? "More," because it's an open secret that the CIA and U.S. special forces have people on the ground in Syria to help train the rebels and to make sure the weapons flowing into the country reach moderate elements of the opposition, not the al-Qaida-affiliated fighters.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 22, 2013 12:51:22 PM | 64

Kerry openly declare arming of terrorists.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/356401/kerry-calls-for-support-to-end-syria-imbalance

Remember next time this lunatic began to condemn Iran for arming Hamas or Hezbollah..

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 22, 2013 1:11:41 PM | 65

CNN, May 4

U.S. President Barack Obama does not foresee a scenario of "American boots on the ground in Syria," telling reporters Friday that it would not be good for the United States or for that county.

"As a general rule, I don't rule things out as commander-in-chief because circumstances change," Obama said during a joint news conference with President Laura Chinchilla of Costa Rica, where the president stopped during a three-day visit to the region.

"...Having said that, I do not foresee a scenario in which boots on the ground in Syria, American boots on the ground in Syria, would be good for America or be good for Syria."

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 22, 2013 1:18:10 PM | 66

@ Anonymous #65
Kerry openly declare armingsupport of terrorists.

There, I fixed for you.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 22, 2013 1:21:11 PM | 67

Of course Bashar will go. He claims he's been planning to go -- in 2014 or 2021 when his term runs out. Considering the level of support for battling the insurgency, as well as his current lowlevel of security for moving around Damascus, there is no reason to expect that he would need to flee the country or even to the coast if he were to decide not to run next year. Why shouldn't his family remain in Damascus? What will be interesting to see is how open the Ba'ath Party is to some "primary" system to choose new leadership and how competitive the next Ba'ath candidate will be.

But that's not the vision the West has for how Bashar must go. Instead, they have been trying to use the insurgents to pressure Syrians into an outside-imposed "transitional government" long before Bashar's current term expires.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jun 22, 2013 9:11:14 PM | 68

Of course the claim of CW was an excuse for further US involvement (or rather an acknowledgement of the extent of support the US and CIA were already giving the insurgents). A couple of other possible triggers for Obama's escalation include the readiness of some of the Jordanian-trained "secular rebels"(SAA deserters) who have completed their traing on some of the more advanced weapons systems. Also, having succeeded in drawing Hezbollah into the conflict in a more visible role, the US has capitalized on its categorization by Americans as a terrorist organization to distract attention from the insurgents being terrorist-linked (to AQ, an organization that Americans identify as actually having attacked American civilians). All the MSM can say about the SAA's success in Qusair is to repeat "Hezbollah" over and over again, as a ruse for escalating support for the insurgency. So far, the American public (especially Democrats) are not buying it.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jun 22, 2013 9:27:30 PM | 69

The Economist is a magazine written by 22 year olds pretending to be grey haired and weary old reporters, experienced and knowledgeable about all affairs in the world. This is what I'm told by friends who write for the Economist. Whenever serious issues come up, they tow the line.

Posted by: Crest | Jun 22, 2013 10:55:04 PM | 70

The Economist says
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21579835-west-should-intervene-syria-many-reasons-one-stem-rise-persian-power-can?fsrc=scn%2Ftw_ec%2Fcan_iran_be_stopped_

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst

Yes,try closing down The Economist.

Posted by: chris | Jun 23, 2013 8:39:49 AM | 71

PS I used to read The Economist (in my local library) quite a lot
i also used to read the FT every Saturday for 20 years
(in the hopes of learning something useful regarding finance etc)
i cant say i learned a bloody thing from either
please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxPFZra8MuM
peter Oborne lets rip on the useful idiots who helped get us into the Euro mess

HE ALSO GIVES his opinion as to why the FT used to be a respectable newspaper (20 years ago)

Posted by: chris | Jun 23, 2013 8:47:53 AM | 72

Another reason that Geneva 2 is being pushed forward repeatedly is that everyone at the UN and affiliated are quarreling amongst themselves.

The Human Rights Council was supposed to give a prelim opinion - and they could only come up with a weak statement as the extremes (no arms or assistance from anyone under any shape or form to either party vs. arm the rebels, create humanit. corridors, etc. etc.) could not be even mildly washed away. This council is of course a political arena and the human rights of Syrians are interpreted thru such a lens.

The UN (etc.) brokers of the Geneva 2 meet have their own agenda and cards to play and must have plans A, B, C: more reasonably, they cannot oversee or a-hem direct negotiations between Assad and the ‘opposition’ without a clear idea of the various geo-political stances of many different parties. (there are many other issues, here only the UN etc. is mentioned.)

My personal rough take, news, radio, gossip, so quite unreliable, is that GB simply wants Assad gone, on the ‘evil dictator’ line but would not be unhappy with some kind of status quo without too many ‘rebels’, pending other interests, moves, in the future.

France is viciously bellicose with the full panoply of humanitarian BS. Hollande is weak at home, makes up for it with aggro directed outside (see Mali, fiscal matters, cultural exceptions, etc.) so is Atlanticist.

I read Putin as very reluctant and nervous - he could have done without this boondoggle. Obama, as well, has held off, though he is obviously now under some extremely stiff pressure.

Still, the official Russia position is clear, and strong, which has its own merits.

For Geneva 2 to take place, there has to some rapprochement or at least willingness to open up dialogue (in UN-speak) between Russia and the US, good luck with that for the mo.

Syria is being destroyed in a proxy war that is in fact being fought, or decided, not so much on the ground (arms etc.) but in corridors of power. This has been going on for years now, all parties (except Assad as victim, and Jihadists as attackers) are losing credibility.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 23, 2013 8:53:02 AM | 73

I have a more sinister scenario:

1. Turkey, the US (deliberately) have cut off support to the Al Nusra factions. This allowed the current syrian army to destroy those (radical) groups.
2. Then the US can start to support the "moderate" syrian forces/group(s) that can be more controlled by the US.

Posted by: Willy2 | Jun 23, 2013 1:19:10 PM | 74

Willy2 | Jun 23, 2013 1:19:10 PM | 74 - So wipe out 6000+, not only would there War be over but US would have nothing to control. But at least the problem would be over so that would be nice of the US and Turkey. In fact reports say some members of the FSA believe that after the Assad government has been overthrown (Very optimistic), the next war will be between the FSA and the Islamists, meaning the Al Nusra factions. So the future in their eyes (FSA), is yet another War...

Posted by: kev | Jun 23, 2013 2:55:30 PM | 75

The comments to this entry are closed.

 

Site Meter