More Arms For Destroying Syria
As I wrote on September 30 2012 on the foreign supported insurgents in Syria:
Syria: Destruction Is Their Aim
...Hizbullah's Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah has come to the same conclusion (as translated by @Amani_Lebanon):
Destruction of the infrastructure, economy and social fabric of Syria is their and their supporters aim.
10:56 AM - 30 Apr 13 - #Nasrallah: When we look at the whole picture on Syria, israel's position, and the recent happenings, we come to come conclusion:Today "officials" are telling U.S. papers that Obama is "moving toward sending lethal arms to Syrian rebels".10:57 AM - 30 Apr 13 - #Nasrallah: The aim is not just to get Syria out of the resistance axis, it's not just about the Arab struggle against israel
10:58 AM - 30 Apr 13- #Nasrallah: Their aim is to completely destroy Syria, all of Syria, their aim is to make sure Syria becomes unable to stand on its feet.
10:59 AM - 30 Apr 13 - #Nasrallah: They want to destroy Syria as a people, an army, a whole nation
10:59 AM - 30 Apr 13 - #Nasrallah: They want to turn Syria into a starved, destroyed and torn one.
This is just political theater. These papers are conveniently forgetting their own reporting on Syria. The destruction of Syria with the help of jihadist groups has been planned since 2007. The U.S. has been sending arms to the insurgents from the very beginning. It has also run an extensive media campaign to support the insurgency. The U.S. exports grain and other food as "aid" to Syria which is then distributed by extreme radical al-Nusra cells. The first arms to Syria came from the black market, then from Libyan stockpiles, then arms were flown in from Croatia. All by or through U.S. secret services. The deliveries were made by the CIA from its large station in Benghazi, as well as through its stations in Turkey and Jordan. The groups those arms went to were vetted by the CIA and there is evidence that these weapons have also gone to takfiri jihadists like Jabhat al-Nusra. There is definitely no reluctance in official U.S. circles to arm anyone, no matter how radical there polices are, who is willing to destroy Syria.
In the end it does not matter whether the arms the CIA delivers are coming from Libyan, Croatian or U.S. stocks. It does not matter to which groups these arms are flowing to. More arms will only have one effect. The further destruction of Syria which the U.S. had planned for from the very beginning of its campaign.
Posted by b on May 1, 2013 at 9:45 UTC | Permalink
« previous pageThe clumsy goons who were in on the planting of bombs in Moscow were well known Russia intelligence operatives who were recognized on the scene by local witnesses.
"Well known" as in "often seen on TV"? Or as in "having facebook pages with 'FSB' as employer"?
Bullshit!
Most people in a large city, like in zusa or uk, wouldn't recognize their friendly local police officer who works in full uniform, when he stood next to them in the supermarket wearing civil clothes.
*If* there were "witnesses" saying sth. like "Yes. I saw one of them intelligence guys there, planting the bombs" then they were instructed to do so.
And, don't you think that those clumsy goons would have simply killed any witnesses who happened to coincidentially pass by? Or would they have a rule demanding that those people were to die during the bombing and not during the preparations? After all they were "clumsy goons", right?
These testimonies were published in Anna Politkovskaya' s books and news articles.
I see. Like in those newspapers who were strictly opposed to Putin who would write tons of lies, if only it painted Putin in bad colours.
And then, of course, now that you tell us, I see the light. If Anna Politkovskaya has written about it it must have been true. After all, she was an expert on "clumsy goons" as well as an expert in crime investigations.
Bullshit!
Anna Politkovskaya was Putin hating activist who, expecting the worst of Putin anyway, was more than eager to listen to - and believe - any Anti-Putin stories.
It was, of course, her right to believe whatever she pleased to believe. But her credibility was null and zilch. For her Putin could have rained cold coins on Moscow and she would only have written a story about them coins be radio-active.
These testimonies were published in Anna Politkovskaya' s books and news articles.
Uh? and that proves anything whatsoever?
I can give you books with witnesses for pretty anything. How about a book with witnesses that A. Hitler was a friendly, good guy? Or maybe a book with witnesses that politicians are all shape-shifting aliens? Just make your choice. there are loonies out there who have written book with "evidence" and "credible witnesses" about pretty everything.
This is the same journalist, known throughout the world for her integrity and physical courage, who reported as a war correspondent, and was assassinated as some will remember, just outside her Moscow apartment, on Putin's birthday.
Yeah, right. Putins birthday proves everything, of course. That's how "clumsy goons" act. They send greetings with their victims.
Putin himself, once more (for the 1000th time) asked about her once put it quite well in an interview. He said something along the lines "We had no reason whatsoever to even strongly dislike Mrs. Politkovskaya. For a simple reason: She was a big figure with certain circles, not few of them outside Russia. In Russia herself, however, Mrs. Politkovskayas reach, credibility and importance was very limited. Excuse my hard words but actually she just wasn't important enough to even consider doing *anything* against her. That's why we did not even sue her for libel and other infringements; we could, but it wasn't worth the effort.
Nevertheless, she also fell victim to a cruel crime and that will be examined as it should by the proper authorities."
Please note that I'm not saying Putin never did dirty things. Possibly he did because he had to. But if he did then he did it professionally. After all he is not a brainless dumbo like bush but a well educated intelligent man with many years of KGB and FSB high level experience.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 3 2013 23:50 utc | 102
Copeland @ 92
part two..
I did see all the interviews Corbett did regarding Gladio with Sibel Edmonds-- they were quite good
Pat Bateman somewhere back there in all the comments...
You inspired a post..:)
I'll bet you did not ever think you could be a source of inspiration?
Or perhaps you had previously?
Who knows?
On the falsity of the US cancelling the missile defense because of Russia
http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2013/05/useuropean-missile-shield-cancelled.html
And one more thing, for the Canadian crowd, mostly but not alone
The beef men are pushing on the federal government to allow beef etc to be radiated in Canada.
Going down that slippery slope.. unless you all enjoy being guinea pigs??
I have been blasting it out to everyone I know
http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2013/05/beef-industry-is-asking-federal.html
Our silence is acquiescence.
If we are to believe guys like that master of disinfo Alexander Litvinenko, even the horrors of Beslan was perpetrated by Putin and the FSB. And if you are to believe American bloggers, Craft employees (proudly wearing their Craft hats) are the real bombers. It's not even to say you are wrong - It just doesn't hold water logically. Combine that with a lack of evidence, and you're just sapping your credibility when you present conjecture and insinuation as irrefutable fact.
Posted by: guest | May 4 2013 0:18 utc | 105
It the same lies stamped out by Goebbels 80 years ago that still hangs on today, like dog shit on the shoe of history.
Lies are cheap and effective weapons, and they are used often. Far more often, indeed, than complicated and risky "false flag" attacks on ones own population. We shouldn't forget that.
Posted by: guest | May 4 2013 0:21 utc | 106
It is encouraging that some liberal commentators (Matthews, Maddow, Stewart) in the MSM have finally begun speaking out against direct US intervention in Syria and have started calling out neocons for their role in banging the drums for war, as in Iraq (even though they won't go further and call out the rest of the Israel Lobby, including aligned Democratic hawks). While Juan Cole has written against direct US intervention, he still sees a role for "humanitarian corridors" and "buffer zones." So are some liberals, like Cole, still holding on to the possibility of a UN or NATO enforced "No Fly Zone?"
Finding ways to help the refugees and displaced, and to get food to half-starving neighborhoods in places like Homs, are about the best the US could do. I think we’re on the verge of having a plausible humanitarian corridor in the north, and Jordan is considering a buffer zone in the south.It is not as if the world is stepping up on humanitarian aid in the first place; why would anybody think they will risk even more with a military role? Lets see billions in humanitarian aid flow to the Syrian people– that might sustain them for their fight against tyranny. But even that is not being done.
It is a horrible situation. It breaks our hearts every day. But here as in medicine, the first rule has to be to do no harm, to avoid making things worse. It would be very, very easy to make things worse.
Obama is a smart man who knows all the above. That is why he is reluctant to get involved in that civil war, unless it spills over onto a US ally in the region in a highly destabilizing way.
Other liberals, like Landis, have come out against both an Iraq or Libya scenario, yet they still want us to support the insurgency in some capacity. Just let Syria's Arab neighbors take the lead in military intervention, not America:
Considering that the US engagement in Iraq cost well over 1 trillion dollars and political violence remains high, the US intervention was not a success. Washington solved little. 400 Iraqis were killed in bombings and attacks this April alone. The US did not bring power-sharing, justice, or an end to political killing in Iraq, thus failing in its mission. Iraqi Arabs do not like us today. Both on a humanitarian level and in terms of national interest, the intervention failed. The Iraqi government is working against US interests on almost every front. How will the US be more successful in Syria, where the problems are so similar?The US should not lead the way in Syria. Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have a much greater stake in Syria and should lead the way. Their interest will be sustained. They have the money, advanced weapons, and strong religious motivation to help the rebels and defeat Iranian and Shiite influence in Syria. The US should not be taking sides in the larger regional contest pitting Shiites against Sunnis.
I am sure the US can help, but to take the lead as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan would be the height of folly. The US should definitely spend much more money to aid Syrians, but others should take the lead in using military force and in helping Syria build a new state and common sense of national identity.
Posted by: Rusty Pipes | May 4 2013 1:02 utc | 107
Copeland,
Significant whistleblowers have their families murdered, and then they get to serve life in prison to contemplate their stupidity. It's the American Way. They don't get interviewed in major magazines, and they don't get favorable coverage anywhere. They also don't have meetings or organizations near DC that we get to read about.
It's true that those who stumble across something can say something and get in trouble. It's also true that some brave souls have sent documents to a few people who will mention things publicly.
If you think the Pentagon Papers were some big deal, then I would argue that you are hopelessly optimistic. They should have been called the CIA Papers as they helped avoid the far worse dirt the CIA was up to over there, and go after the more minor military angle. And, the situation is far more controlled now than back then.
Posted by: Paul | May 4 2013 4:23 utc | 108
Rusty Pipes (107)
(Not meaning you personally, just referring to what you quoted)
Funny that zusa journalists (who for the major part are nothing more than a particularly dirty variant of whores) see themselves in a role to decide what's good for Syria and who should lead the effort.
For a starter it's definitely not up to american media whores and politician criminals to decide what's good for Syria (or any other country).
How about finally doing the only sensible thing that has, what a coincidence, been suggested and demanded by Russia from day one: Let the Syrian people decide!
Look at your own country, americans! You are definitely not in the position to dictate what's good for a country or how to run a country - as your rotten, broken country that has been involved in criminal acts for decades proves beyond reasonable doubt.
While you americans engage in bold vanity and believe in fairy tales of being superior, you are actually considered a people of dumb morons and criminals who can't properly read and write for the major part.
Actually more than 80% of americans would not even be capable to locate Syria on a globe. Yet you feel fit to dictate what's good for Syrians. You blubber about being the light of democracy, yet you do not even consider the only democratic solution - to let the Syrians decide, or, more correctly, to accept what they have decided that is, Assad being their elected president.
Maybe Russia and China shouldn't patiently wait for zusa going belly up. Maybe they should do this world a favour and go the "american way" with bombs and missiles.
And don't worry, they won't piss on your corpses. They are not americans.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 4 2013 8:11 utc | 109
Iran has strongly condemned the desecration of an ancient tomb on the outskirts of Damascus belonging to a Shia Muslim figure, warning the perpetrators against the consequences of the blasphemous act.
Wondered how long before these criminal acts would be committed by the Zionist lackeys. Iran and Hezbollah cannot let this go without some serious retaliation. The religious dimension is the next card in the Zionist planning.
Posted by: hans | May 4 2013 8:40 utc | 110
Rusty,
Reading the tea leaves of liberal American presstitutes is probably not the best way to see what is going on. They have been lost for a long time, and were much more useful early on in this war. It is probably a lot more useful to see how Russian TV or various media in the Middle East are talking. But one can easily see that the narrative of "it's too bad, but we can't always fix the world" has replaced the "it's America's responsibility to make the world a better place" one. However, this is still being too fixated on US propaganda. Those who run ZATO wouldn't mind a blitzkrieg based on fake peace initiatives; for all we know, they already did that with their attack on Damascus some time ago. What matters is the reality on the ground, and it looks like the Syrian, Iranian, Russian, and Hezbollan forces look too strong at the moment. This doesn't mean, however, that actual peace will take place. It is likely that ZATO will try to prevent the development of Syria and any pipelines.
Posted by: Paul | May 4 2013 9:00 utc | 111
Some call it "news"--
Sources: US believes Israel has conducted an airstrike into Syria
(CNN) -- U.S. officials believe Israel has conducted an airstrike into Syria, two U.S. officials told CNN. U.S. and Western intelligence agencies are reviewing classified data showing Israel most likely conducted a strike Thursday or Friday, both officials said.
"Israel most likely conducted a strike Thursday or Friday" I guess Wednesday is out. That's too bad. I sure like Wednesdays to be in my fairy tales. Oh well.
The mystery is over -- it's been confirmed.
Reuters quotes Israeli official who confirmed air strike targeted Syrian missiles shipment headed to guerrillas in Lebanon
Of course the Israeli official couldn't be named because of the sensitivity of the topic.
Actually, I'm going to reiterate what I said in #107:
It is encouraging that some liberal commentators (Matthews, Maddow, Stewart) in the MSM have finally begun speaking out against direct US intervention in Syria and have started calling out neocons for their role in banging the drums for war, as in Iraq (even though they won't go further and call out the rest of the Israel Lobby, including aligned Democratic hawks).
What finally gave some mainstream Liberals like Matthews, Maddow, Stewart and Corn (in MoJo) the courage/confidence to say anything on this subject? It may have been just that carefully couched language from Obama to the Senate neo-cons: show me the evidence. While many MSM outlets ran with the headline, "Obama may arm rebels," as congressional hawks hyped the Syrian threat, a few MSM liberals have started to talk about Iraq, neocons and WMD. Even when they espouse the necessity of the Brutal Dictator Assad being deposed (on Diane Rehm's show last week, Robin Wright called Assad the most brutal dictator in the Middle East -- and she was the most liberal person on the panel), some liberal commentators are finally opposing US arms to Syria -- if only on the Iraq premise that they won't get fooled again.
So, I see this alleged attack by Israel on an alleged arms shipment to Lebanon as an attempt by Israel and neocons to keep the conflict in Syria bubbling and to try to draw the US into it.
Posted by: Rusty Pipes | May 4 2013 22:23 utc | 114
The comments to this entry are closed.
Copeland @ 92
If you are referencing the apartment bombing I have read somewhere and when I find the piece I will leave that for you to read
That rumour was started by none other then Boris B
who was up to his eye teeth in funding the Chechen rebels...
I will dig it up if at all possible, but I believe it was a Forbes article
Posted by: Penny | May 3 2013 23:48 utc | 101