Syria: SNC Convinces Russia To Increase Help For Assad
The exile Syrian National Council was invited to Moscow and when there tried to convince the Russian of their cause. The way they did it shows a grotesque and amateurish stupidity.
Russia needs to understand that the conflict in Syria is not a dispute between the opposition and regime but a revolution, the chief of the main exiled opposition group said in Moscow on Wednesday.“The events in Syria are not disagreements between the opposition and the government but a revolution,” Syrian National Council (SNC) chief Abdul Basset Sayda told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, comparing the events in his country to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
To set fall of the Soviet Union, which wasn't caused by revolution but by the wrangling within the political leadership, as an example for Syria's future will have convinced all Russians to double their effort to stand by the Syrian government. Here is why:
Speaking to the nation in his annual address, Putin used some of his strongest language to describe his country's fate over the past 14 years."The collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century," Putin said. "For the Russian people, it became a real drama. Tens of millions of our citizens and countrymen found themselves outside Russian territory. The epidemic of disintegration also spread to Russia itself."
That the fall of the Soviet Union was a catastrophe is not only Putin's opinion:
"It is very clear that for the great majority of Russian people, the disintegration of the Soviet Union was a personal catastrophe," [Boris] Kagarlitskii[, the director of the Institute of Globalization Studies in Moscow,] said. "It was also a catastrophe for a tremendous majority of people in Tajikistan, quite a lot of people in Uzbekistan, and so on, including many people in Ukraine. Because families were divided, people's lives were ruined, living standards collapsed, the minimal standards of human justice, and very often of freedom, were also neglected."
That is indeed also the likely the perspective for the majority of Syrians should the western sponsored insurgency win.
To remind the Russians of that is the most dumb thing the SNC chief could have done in Moscow. Putin's support, and that of the Russian people, for the Syrian government may well increase after this SNC lecture.
Posted by b on July 11, 2012 at 15:35 UTC | Permalink
« previous pageyes, and decolonization that followed WW2 was orchestrated at Wall Street, and Castro was an Illuminati, and Hezbollah's strings are pulled in London
I repeat: the war the British and all other western powers "winners" of WWI unleashed on Russia (1917-1922) killed more people than Stalin; and Munich 1938 was essentially an anti-Soviet move against its main European ally, Czechoslovakia
Capitalists hated the Ussr from the very beginning, and feared it as much as the Devil itself when it showed that it could beat the Whermacht
the Bolscevick revolution was aided by many with idea of pulling Russia out of "the great powers concert" (talk about blow-back!), and also by some in good faith; capitalism wasn't very popular in many circles after it had led Europe to WW1
Posted by: claudio | Jul 13 2012 0:08 utc | 102
"yes, and decolonization that followed WW2 was orchestrated at Wall Street, and Castro was an Illuminati, and Hezbollah's strings are pulled in London"
as ever - unable to process new info not flattering to the idols of the fake-history they learned in their pre-programmed youth people such as claudio are reduced to babbling absurdity
"Capitalists hated the Ussr from the very beginning"
and yet the fact that Capitalists (or at least certain Wall Street financiers) actually helped create it seems to have passed right over your little head -
the reaction of lefitsts to this info (walter being an honourable exception I spose) is pretty hilarious, as I predicted it would be, and doubly so when you consider that modern-day shenanigans such as this are discussed here every day on this site without a blink of the eye from any of these clever leftist chaps
So: modern day political movements in places like the middle-east etc are co-opted or spun-whole from Psycho-Captalist dollars all the time, (they're just unedumacted smelly 3rd worlders,see, not worldy sophisticate like us modern day leftists, so whaddya expect? ) but OH NOES not the ones back in the good old days of the communist revolution, no siree.
Such statments cannot even be countenanced - that's just blasphemey!!! Heretics!!! Off with their heads!!
Cos we sophisticated edumacated leftists would have heard about this from our history professors in our po-mo history and praxis classes, right?
Posted by: Hu Bris | Jul 13 2012 2:07 utc | 103
"the Bolscevick revolution was aided by many with idea of pulling Russia out of "the great powers concert" (talk about blow-back!), and also by some in good faith; capitalism wasn't very popular in many circles after it had led Europe to WW1"
so a combination of the
"We couldn't possibly have known the fanatical fundamentalists we supported would turn out to be fanatical OR fundamentalist"
mixed in with a hearthy dose of
"well they had the BEST of intentions dontcha know"
congratulations claudio !!! - you win the po-mo absurdity of the week prize!!
Yaaaa for you!!!
It's is quite an achievement given the many people who have been vying for that title, here in the past few days -
Posted by: Hu Bris | Jul 13 2012 2:15 utc | 104
@99, hey, thanks for chiming in Claudio! I was afraid I'd have to deal with Brave Heart on my own.
Hu Bris, you're just WRONG, I'm reading the Sutton book now, and it's a hoot! Hands up anyone else who's following along.
Posted by: ruralito | Jul 13 2012 2:57 utc | 105
@101, you took the words right out of Churchill's mouth, something about strangling the Bolshevik Rev. "in its crib". You don't say things like that about something you're secretly in love with, eh Hube?
Posted by: ruralito | Jul 13 2012 3:00 utc | 106
@101, the Wildboar article is a tough read for me.
Eg: "Trotsky was not arrested on a whim. He was recognized as a threat to the best interests of England, Canada's mother country in the British Commonwealth."
The author is pretty arrogant if he thinks he can just go ahead tell me what "best interests" means. And whose might they be, pray tell.
Anyhoo, I go by Occam's Razor: "the principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect." --wikipedia
Wall st was keen to co-opt the russian revolution, hell, they are still at it today! I say that not even to disparage the Capitalists, that's what Wall St. does, they don't survive otherwise.
Didn't Lenin call them his "useful idiots"?
Posted by: ruralito | Jul 13 2012 3:18 utc | 107
"You don't say things like that about something you're secretly in love with, eh Hube?
you really are an idiot - but being an Idiot you can't realise it
I ALREADY said that the particular Capitalists that financed the Bolshies had no great love for Communism, you bonehead - if you actually took the time to read instead of dashing off your usual stupid replies you might have noticed it
And at no point did I ever imply that ALL capitalists financed the Bolsheviks, you silly little man. and I actually named some names you dolt - but i don't recall seeing churchill there amognst them
You'll probably now presume that anyone I didn't name couldn't possibly have financed them either - what with you being a bonehead and all
Western Capitalism does not give two hoots what political tool it uses to destroy a country- And for all we know they'd happily off-shore themsleves and then institute Communism in the US if they thought it would help them control things their way - right now they are using Muslim fundamentalism in the Arab and Muslim world - but my guess is if it were expedient they'd happily use whatever they thought might work to their advantage - I could see them trying to finance a strain of militant fundamentalist Bhuddism if they thought it'd work
Posted by: Hu Bris | Jul 13 2012 3:34 utc | 108
and watching you try to wield Occam's razor without cutting your own damn fool head off is just painful to be honest
Posted by: Hu Bris | Jul 13 2012 3:40 utc | 109
@101, the Wildboar article is a tough read for me.
dude, I'd say anything not composed solely of monosyllabic words and longer than a paragraph or two is a tough read for you
Posted by: Hu Bris | Jul 13 2012 3:43 utc | 110
3 posts in a row of mere insults against ruralito who dares dissent: "idiot", "fool", "dude" - and not one argument
I said westerners thought Bolscevism would have destroyed Russia's power: and it did, for a good while; what does this have to do with your parodical "We couldn't possibly have known the fanatical fundamentalists we supported would turn out to be fanatical OR fundamentalist" or "well they had the BEST of intentions dontcha know" have to do with what I said?
ruralito, my duty!
imagine, I've never been a Communist, more of a socialist with anarchist leanings, and now I have to defend the Bolscevick revolution against those that want us to believe that the only reality is that of big finance - that nothing important happened in the world in the last centuries unless big finance wanted it to;
Posted by: claudio | Jul 13 2012 6:19 utc | 111
3 posts in a row of mere insults against ruralito who dares dissent: "idiot", "fool", "dude" - and not one argument
Really, not one, eh? you're either blind or a liar - which is it claudio?
Posted by: Hu bris | Jul 13 2012 7:31 utc | 112
calling the idiot an idiot when he behaves like an idiot is nothing more than an accurate description
Posted by: Hu bris | Jul 13 2012 7:39 utc | 113
the only reality is that of big finance
I never made that argument, that's nothing but a strawman you just made up, - my argument is that the main reason the Russian Revolution succeeded is that it DID have major financial Capitalist players backing it - nothing more than that - at no point have I ever maintian that "all capitalists everywhere" supported bolshevism, as you are dishonestly trying to maintain - that you and others have chosen to (deliberately) misinterpret that is nothing to do with me -
but while we're on the subject, any chance of a list of major events over say the past 100 years that DIDN'T have big finance behind it?
Posted by: Hu bris | Jul 13 2012 7:49 utc | 114
What is not to like about Bolshie communism (from the pov of Capitalist WS financiers?) It is a great way to enslave the worker and make a bundle of profits! Amongst other things.
People play both sides at once; or the like minded fall to opposing sides for reasons that are at heart similar but look different on the surface. Anyway, one wants a finger in the pie, right? One likes to act? One has a vision of what the future may hold, how to shape events, etc.
I don’t understand the virulence of this quarrel.
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 13 2012 7:50 utc | 115
I said:
those that want us to believe that the only reality is that of big finance - that nothing important happened in the world in the last centuries unless big finance wanted it to
Hu bris said:
my argument is that the main reason the Russian Revolution succeeded is that it DID have major financial Capitalist players backing it
exactly: you are one of "those"; and particularly ill-mannered, btw
Posted by: claudio | Jul 13 2012 13:13 utc | 116
Yes - to idiots. and you are one of those - since you can't seem to get a simple point - If you could show me a revolution in the last hundred years that succeeded without financing I'd love to see it - in this case the finance came from Big Wall St financiers - that's hardly my fault - just a statement of fact - that it is causing you such distress is a sign of nothing but your own inability to process new information
Posted by: Hu bris | Jul 13 2012 13:30 utc | 117
perhaps it's a case that you do not accept the 'facts' as presented?
Hard to know what your objection is since other than mentioning big finance you have not really articulated it
IMHO people that refuse to accept salient facts are idiotic - and in my experience most of those adhere to some sort of 'ism' -
Posted by: Hu bris | Jul 13 2012 13:35 utc | 118
Hu Bris, please could you stop making a new rant every 2 minutes or so ? I don't mind you seeing everyone else as ignorant pricks who need to be illuminated by your genius, but please pack all of those great thoughts of yours in a much more reasonable numbers of posts at least so we don't have to die of boredom while jumping over your psts. Thanks in advance
Posted by: rototo | Jul 13 2012 14:05 utc | 119
"I don’t understand the virulence of this quarrel."
The libertarians think they've found a magical third way, read safe, and get all riled up when their hopes are dashed.
Posted by: ruralito | Jul 13 2012 17:15 utc | 120
Now you see, Mr Bonehead - that's your problem right there - you're unable to consider a thought without first applying a silly little label to the person expressing it. So for you the obvious conclusion, that the bolsheviks were financed by Wall street so as to destroy Russia as a competitor to the US in the early part of the 20th Century, can be dismissed because it is supposedly, in your little head, a 'liberatrian' idea - rather than just being the obvious conclusion a non-bonehead would arrive at given the clear evidence of Wall Street financing the Bolsheviks.
Boneheads like you see everything through some stupid over-politicised-lens - and that's the problem with 'isms' and 'ists' - It's been my experience that followers of 'isms' usually take on board a whole raft of pre-determined positions, often on diverse topics they've never really spent anytime thinking about for themselves. you're unable to conceive of someone saying what I'm saying without immediately tryign to label that person as some sort of political enemy - I'm neither left nor right wing, nor 'libertarian' whatever that means, so I'm not emotionally invested in some political theory someone else thought up - and unlike yourself and the rest of the dogmatic leftists, can accept new info even whan it clashes with what I previously thought I knew
So far neither of you two towering intellects seem able to provide examples of major events such as revolutions, occuring in the last 100 years. that didn't have a State or Big finance (often the same thing) behind it - this despite the fact that you both appear to be denying the very obvious role big finance plays in such events - that you want to label that 'libertarian' is predictable I guess, since you're so obviously desperate to dismiss the notion, and planting a stupid label on it will allow you do, so that you can then justify to yourself and others, your pretty obvious desire to remain ignorant of actual events and go back to believing in your socialist fairy-tales
Posted by: Hu Bris | Jul 14 2012 0:42 utc | 121
the ideal rate of insults-to-arguments is 0%; Hu bris' is at about 90%; so this has turned into a tiring quarrel; nonetheless, his argument deserves a more direct answer;
Hu bris' thesis I contend with is if the donation of a few rich men in the Us to the Bolscevicks can be defined as "Capitalist support" for the Revolution, to the point that it can be defined as a "Capitalist revolution" as he did in post #32
My answer is no.
1) Schiff's contributions, in particular, can be traced to his Jewish commitment (an ethnic-religious factor) and his pro-German feelings (a family and probably business factor). Capitalism in the Us was quite widespread, and the feelings of the vast majority of capitalists can be better measured by the Us' participation in the Russian civil war.
2) a "Capitalist revolution", if you aren't playing with words, is a revolution inspired by capitalism and/or helpful to capitalist interests: applied to the Bolscevick revolution it's senseless
3) contributions, in the context of major politica upheavals, can and are made with the most diverse intentions, perspectives, passions, etc; to conclude, from the existence of a financial contribution, that Capitalism has chosen sides, or that the event will be of a capitalist nature, is misleading at the least
MY thesis is that defining the Bolscevick revolution a Capitalist revolution is of a consiratorial nature, according to which nothing important happens in the world without big finance wanting it to.
The fact is that capitalism was kept in check, at least within western countries, until the collapse of the Ussr, and got a boost from that event.
Posted by: claudio | Jul 15 2012 0:25 utc | 122
The comments to this entry are closed.
ruralto @71 writes about the link I left:
"line the first @ Wildboar 'The top Communist leaders have never been as hostile to their counterparts in the West, as the rhetoric suggests.' Whose rhetoric? The rhetoric suggests the opposite in this ear.
Anyways, not convinced. There's a strain of libertarian populism in the article. The appeal to both sides are equally bad."
I agree the "strain of libertarian populism" that makes it a bit hard to read. But the facts are amazing, no? Apart from the author's interpretation of the facts, I enjoyed it. Plus, I think it's a fair assessment. I disagree with the libertarian pov, aka my #4 in comment #69 above, but I think my libertarian comrades are more willing to look at uncomfortable facts than many liberals are. In this regard I agree with Hu Bris.
But the story itself is worthy of attention and interesting and lefties should want to dig into it. It may show capitalism kneecapped socialism in its infancy via subterfuge.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Jul 12 2012 23:36 utc | 101