|
Some Thoughts On Syria
Since the ruler of Qatar made up with the ruler of Saudi Arabia, this happened shortly after Mubarak stepped down, Aljazeera, owned by Qatar, has morphed into a propaganda channel. Several of its reporters, including the bureau chief in Lebanon, have stepped down.
As Aljazeera now acts very much like the partisan 'western' media, there is no reliable media information coming out of the country. The online activists, led via the Facebook page of a salafi Muslim Brotherhood guy in Sweden, are mostly not in the country and have an interest in exaggerating the size of the demonstrations and force the regime is using.
The reports coming from the government are, of course, unreliable too. It says that many of the bloody incidence came through provocation, that is shooting, from unknown forces suspected to be sponsored by foreign entities. This is certainly a possibility but it is hard to judge how true these reports are.
After the first bigger protests calling for reform started, the regime arranged for a big pro-regime demonstration in Damascus. Independent sources said it was really quite big and that most demonstrators attended without orders or pressure to do so. But smaller non-violent anti-regime protests continued and led to concessions by the government on the most demanded points, especially the abolishment of the emergency law. This will have satisfied at least some of the protesters.
But then more violent protests in several cities continued, now demanding the fall of the regime. I seriously doubt that the majority of Syrians do support this demand. The plausible alternatives to the regime, which isn't nice, are worse. The most likely scenario is massive sectarian strife with salafi-Sunni attacks on minority Christians and Alawites.
Unlike in Egypt there is no sign that the army will abandon the ruling government. The intervention by fukUS in Libya has already created enough bad experience that such measures will not be considered with regards to Syria or anywhere else. There is no sign that a majority or even significant minority of Syrians has any interest in violent regime change.
My current assessment is therefor that the regime will now put up a bit of a fight and, if it can stomach to do that harshly enough, it will win this fight.
The same is likely in Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Iraq, where demonstration now also get gunned down by government forces. The difference to Syria is of course that no 'western' country will demand sanctions or intervention against any of those 'allies'.
I am currently too busy in the real world to properly work through all of the diversions which have been planted here.
But as a human who has lived in a diverse range of societies & always striven to relate to the ordinary bloke (accepting that no bloke is really ordinary we all have our unique attributes), the one thing I know without a doubt is that the majority of humans prefer life in a society governed from within to that governed without.
That is to say as blood thirsty as the Iraqi Ba’athist regime was, if you ask the average Iraqi (Sunni or Shia the difference on this is slight) whether they preferred life under the Ba’athists to life under a regime of amerikan puppets, they will take the Ba’athists every time. The same goes for Libya, remember when the so called revolution began and the ‘revolutionaries’ were telling us they had divisions of Libyan soldiers ready to desert or switch sides & fight for the revolution against the current Libyan government.
They never showed up because the officers in charge of those soldiers found out that they weren’t being asked to fight for eastern Libyan idealists, but fukUS puppets. They quickly switched back to the side that wanted to defend their nation against foreign incursion. The ‘revolutionaries’ can’t find enough Libyans prepared to betray their nations so have now become reliant on foreign assistance.
Even ‘sub-Saharan’ Libyans (I.E. blackfella) involvement in Libyan politics is preferable to whitefella control of Libya, for the average Libyan Arab redneck.
The Dalai Lama is a nice enough bloke as someone else has pointed out he hasn’t been involved in Tibetan politics -remember the Brits smuggled him out before he was to assume control from the ‘Regent’ the administrator who runs Tibet during the time it takes each incarnation of the Dalai Lama to get up to speed. Previously each incarnation was taken from his birth family while still a baby and then indoctrinated educated into the bossfella gig by the administrative elite.
Now the Tibetan system of putting second third and fourth born children into the monasteries and nunneries was created for similar reasons to why Ireland had so many monasteries and nunneries. Ireland had the military alternative but afail that wasn’t an option in Tibet, attempts by a previous DL incarnation to bolster the army had been opposed by the monks, so everyone who wan’t going to inherit the farm or marry whoever was going to inherit the farm was institutionalised as the most economic way of supporting unproductive mouths.
The alternative was to divide agricultural land into smaller parcels with each successive generation until everyone starves because every farm is uneconomically small.
There has been a massive influx of Han Chinese into Tibet, a situation which is impossible to reverse given that Tibet is surrounded by Han Chinese on 3 sides. That population shift was necessitated by england’s imperialist plan to keep control of the Dalai Lama until he reached maturity and could claim the throne, whereupon the brits hoped to stoke a popular uprising. Why? Because Tibet sits bang smack in the middle between the two largest nations of the Indian sub-continent on one side, and China on the other.
Tibet should be considered the Switzerland of Asia, containing elements of both the dominant cultures aside of it, combined to form a unique culture. As soon as the brits grabbed the Dalai Lama any chance of a negotiated resolution ended because england only has an economic iron in the fire, there is no cultural or familial commonality, so there is no driving force for negotiation. The brits wanted to sit the thing out which is what they have done until stymied by Chinese population solution. The invasion by China occurred after considerable provocation. China had been in control of Tibet’s borders pretty much consistently since the 12th century AD, this was until the end of the Qing dynasty at the start of the 20th century, whereupon the brits and other ‘western’ intriguers stirred up trouble. All the previous 700 years China had left Tibetan society alone, and they tried the same in 1950, initially just occupying frontier posts and leaving the DL and his mob to deal with domestic issues as they saw fit. That didn’t work because the capitalists tried to use their position in Tibet to undermine the People’s Republic.
Shit! This is turning into too much of a history lesson I have just sussed out a wiki entry which takes the opposite point of view but basic outline of what happened when is there. Check out the wiki entry on this but do remember there is a lot of ‘citation needed’ entries where opinions (generally those claiming USuk good China bad) rather than facts supported by evidence.
Tibet is no longer a 12th century agrarian society and those demonstrators who resisted the Chinese occupation a couple years back were fighting to preserve the rights of indigenous Tibetans, but when the DL got involved they made it pretty clear they didn’t see much future in ‘turning back the clock’. The DL seems to have come to terms with this which has pissed off the poms who wanted to have someone they believed under their control to put up against China. For young Tibetans being run form Beijing seems to be a less worse option than being run from London through an irrelvant medieval religious dictatorship, at least there is a shared history with China and some commonality
The feudalist past, built on a system designed primarily to ensure that an agrarian society doesn’t fail is no longer a practical option for Tibet. This is a common issue faced by indigenous societies whose political system was out of commission during massive societal changes, with no evolution of it to permit effective solutions to contemporaneous issues.
I see the same thing here in NZ. A treaty was signed between the english and much of the Tangata Whenua (Maori) leadership, in 1840. The english were getting asses kicked and weren’t prepared to put more military resources to secure a tiny piece of land with limited resources. Of course the treaty was consistently broken by whitefellas but as the rule of objective constitutional law took hold in the second half the 20th century Tangata Whenua managed to exercise more political power. The only mechanism available, traditional leaders of the original iwi (tribes) leaves a swathe of Tangata Whenua without a voice either because 200 years of whitefella incursion have separated them from their iwi or because they didn’t belong to one in the first place – complicated but there were many ‘free agents’ who had chosen to live apart from tribes or who had been captured by other iwi and kept as slaves for generations. None of them had a tribal affiliation when whitefellas turned up, an essential prerequisite of courts whose basic premise is all about whitefella property laws esp ‘ownership’. Now a group which maintained awesome solidarity during it’s comeback to political power has become fragmented and exploited by whitefellas and wanna-be whitefellas alike.
Western ‘civilisation’ has become adept at exploiting the latency of indigenous political expression. Hence fukUS eagerness to install the Dalai Lama in Tibet or Mohammed al-Senussi in Libya. This will be in a ‘spoiler’ role in Libya, a fallback position in case the eager technocrats who have skipped into Benghazi from Tripoli (where they were the architects of the neo-liberal fuck ups that had caused labour market problems and the rise of a greedy, corrupt elite & into conflict with the ‘old school’ elements of the Libyan regime) don’t stop the flow of Libyan funds out of europe into Africa.
True, a previous Senussi had backed the introduction of the petroleum law which made it impossible for Libya to fall prey to the power of transnational energy monopolies, essentially self protection to prevent a monopoly from becoming powerful enough to create a fall back to the Libyan king at a time when monarchs were falling right left and center, but before that the Senussis had been dedicated and loyal puppets to whichever whitefella was in charge – the Ottomans, the Italians or fukUS.
Being made a subject of a foreign nation sucks, the more foreign the nation the more it sucks. Syria is desperate to prevent further incursions by Jordanian agent provocateurs, but has to walk a fine line knowing that if they come down too hard on the false flag Jordanians causing so much trouble in the border towns, the lying lapdog media will crank up the lies in the west so far that China & Russia may have to back off and allow a fukUS attack on Syria.
Syria should get smart and grease the wheels of opposition to Abdullah, Jordan’s USuk puppet monarch – that would really give Cameron & the chinless wonders something to whine about. Moving away from the reactive positions that speed up the vicious cycle turning the ‘Arab Spring’ into a cynical exercise in neo-colonialism, and into a proactive position of stirring up trouble among Syria’s enemies could lift the pressure elsewhere, not merely Jordan.
One thing is clear – the rate of demand for change in the ME can be made to exceed whitefella’s gluttonous appetite for other people’s stuff. fukUS are creaming their jeans at the thought of direct control of ME resources, but the cock-up in Libya has demonstrated the considerable divergence between desire and execution. There’s no wonder drug like viagra for fukUS, who appear to alternate between either not getting it up at all or doing the old one stroke roll that pisses off the fuckee.
This is why that notorious sucker of whitefella cocks, Ban ki-Moon has been calling for the imposition of a sanctions regime on Syria. The greedy assholes don’t have big enough paws to grab ahold of everything at once, so they want to ‘do an Iraq’ to Syria by escalating sanctions over a few years into a total siege. Thus far China & Russia have refused to go along with it, but eventually fukUS will slice off a big enough chunk of their ordinary citizens or shit-kickers’ future, to satisfy the pressure Russia & China are copping from their own shit-kickers. All the time ensuring that it at worst ‘cost neutral’ for fukUS elites and at best & most likely a ‘nice little earner’ for them. Then the two security council holdouts will pocket the the wedge and vote yes.
Let’s hope that Assad junior or one his off-siders has the smarts to exploit the time lag on offer effectively.
Jordan going off like sex tourist in a Thai whorehouse, will have the zionists across the river shitting two ton bricks, especially now there is no Mubarak or his enforcer Omar Suleiman to kick Abdullah back into line.
Trouble is the zionist lunatics in Israel would likely Beirut or Gaza Amman if things began to look very different in Jordan, and that would certainly exacerbate the entire issue. It could spin into a crazy zionist nuke fest. Would amerika intervene against the Likudniks if all amerika’s freshly stolen oil fields were about to disappear in a mushroom cloud? The fact we can even consider that amerika might not put a stop to that shows how crazily out of kilter things have become. Riding for a fall barely describes it.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Apr 27 2011 5:31 utc | 20
|
