|
The Syrian Army Takes Qusayr
From Naharnet Breaking News:
| 05 June 2013, 06:25
|
The Syrian rebel fighters announced their withdrawal from al-Qusayr.
|
|
05 June 2013, 05:28
|
Free Syrian Army Command denied to al-Jazeera that the Syrian Army forces controlled al-Qusayr.
|
|
05 June 2013, 04:20
|
Activists denied that the Syrian regime forces controlled the town of Qusayr.
|
The Syrian army launched a surprizing night attack and overran the insurgency positions in Qusayr. Some of the insurgents managed to flee north but will have trouble to break through the wide cordon that the Syrian army set up.
The insurgency's supply line from Lebanon to Homs is severed. Insurgency positions in Homs city and Homs governate will soon fall to the Syrian army. To free the insurgcy held parts of Aleppo further north will be the next big target.
Erdogan has a clear mandate from Turkey’s citizens and as much as those who hold these two conflicting positions may like to deny it, there is little doubt that the moves against Erdogan are being ‘lubricated’ from overseas.
But what mandate? And why?
Does he have the mandate to instigate a civile war and support terrorism against a neighbouring country? I doubt that and polls in turkey strongly support that doubt.
Does he have the mandate to shift/push the moderately islamic country from saecular to islamism? I doubt that. And I guess that, considering the rather unpleasant education situation, most turks would strongly favour better and more schools rather than more mosques.
Does he, considering the still considerable differences in income, have the mandate to enrich friends and loyal party and erdogan servants to the tune of billions and rather illegaly so? I doubt that.
Does he have the mandate to consider – and label – any peaceful opposition “vermin” and to hunt, hurt, and put them in prisons? I doubt that.
And why did he get his mandate whatever that happens to be en detail?
Is it really because the majority of voters wanted him to do whatever – and however – he pleased to do and because they liked him and his plans?
Or is it rather as so often in other democracies, too, that his pre-election propaganda as well as his parties line merely seemd to be the least apalling option?
Just look at western elections. The vast majority voted for obama, hollande, or merkel *not* because they loved their and/or their parties program but for a variety of (sometimes rather irrational) reasons such as
– whoever B happens to be and whatever B happens to propagate, I will vote for him so as to vote against A (you can, for instance, confidently bet that a major part of the the obama as well as the romney voters didn’t vote *for* their but rather *against* the other candidate …)
– family, regional or class tradition as in “We here/we simple workers/we pious people etc. just have to vote for party A/ just cannot allow party B to come to power”.
– incumbent (party) A just has to leave! So I’ll vote for the other party.
– and so on
Looking closely it usually turns out that the beloved wisdom “(s)he has/I have the mandate of the people” is plain and simple bull*it and far from reality.
In that regards it can be reasonably supposed that for Assad that wisdom is actually quite true; not because people love him, not because he Alawite, not even because he is (as has been shown meanwhile) quite smart and loyal to his country – no, simply because he was/is the best compromise and quite probably really has – and follows – a major mandate, namely, to somehow keep his complicated country together, stable, and running.
Without overseas involvement Erdogan will almost certainly stay in power. With it he may go but Turkey will be a mess worse than Libya.
Why? I doubt that.
To name just two reasons:
– summarizing the situation I think it can be fairly said that erdogan has become a rather extreme player of a major party. Politics is first and foremost about power; for some time erdogan was a useful figure for his party to gain/regain/keep power. If they find him rather a burden than an asset he will be shown the exit. If he complies it will be a nice and lucrative exit, if not it will be a painful one. erdogan like any politician in power needs a strong basis and supporters; without that he is dead meat. Most of those supporters again are loyal to their party, greedy themselves and whores. Simple as that.
– turkey has a strong foundation and guiding principles like Kemal Attaturk, the wish for a saecular state to coexist with a moderate islamic culture, and a military that is trusted and has proven to soldily play along established lines.
Syria without Assad would be in deep trouble; turkey without erdogan would continue to exist without any major shift and with one out of some well known and generally acceptable candidates as new PM.
In other words old Bashar is prolly fucked no matter what happens now. If the thugs had won they were gonna bugger n butcher him a la Muammar, but now the Alawites have repelled the forces of darkness Bashar can look forward to a quick bullet to the base of his skull during a palace revolt.
Why? I doubt that.
From what I see on the ground I tend to think that he will not have less but rather more support in Syrias people. After all, he is the leading figure and, as things look so far, he will have succeeded to free his country and throw the wests payed terrorists out of the country. Sure, some of the major parties in Syria will try to deal a little but that will be very limited because everybody there understands that what is given from one party is taken from another and in the end all parties want stability. I think it will turn out to something like “everything like before but with some less power for the president and some more direct power to the people”.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jun 6 2013 4:09 utc | 79
@Don#78, the UN has morphed its mission mandates, outside the humanitarian mission, and like you mentioned it undertakes ‘Peacekeeping’ (UNDP), then recently it moved into ‘Economic’ missions, AKA ‘Integrated Peacebuilding’ and new name by without any adjustment to a already failed template; the Office in Sierra Leone the model ‘UNIPSIL’ headed initially by a German ‘Graff’ Michael von der Schulenburg (A Prince, thus obviously a Political appointee), who played plenty of tennis, later ripped out by BKM with a very sanitized reason, and not a string of events that are never mentioned, like punching his security officer (A much smaller East Timor UN security officer), just because he could, the overall outcome, irrelevant of ‘Personalities’ – an utter failure.
However it does prove the UN is chasing the money, rather than aiding, and at the same time mixing War & Peace under one umbrella; in my eyes, if you can’t reach your goal, use force. Here is a link to the framework/Ideology, the Graff was one of 3 authors; http://www.esdp-course.ethz.ch/content/pubkms/detail.cfm?lng=en&id=23751
The mission – Apart from having a party to drive Femdoms (Female condoms that are suited for midget trampolines),and hanging out on Lumley Beach; it was tainted by dubious HQ dealings, pay off of a Mr. Sam King (Business man and Hotel owner), odd liaisons with some Lebanese connections, including midnight meetings alone, and a very doddgy 2IC from Ethiopia.
As for Peacebuilding – The district of Kono had a UN office in that area, generally unmanned, and being the hub of diamonds, Gold, and lot’s of it, did not have any infrastructure, street lighting for example. The majority of changes (For the better) were ironically made by the Chinese, then again they were open about ‘Business’.
It did push RoL, but all façade, a huge Chinese fishing off-shore factory stretching Km’s, one that you could not hide and was simply ignored, as if it did not exist; then again it was all going into the EU (Wink, wink). Oh yeah, it has ‘Oil’, and some large investments of Gaddafi monies in property and other that I am sure ware never ‘brought up’ post Libya’s conflict. In turn, also a part of the AFRICOM dealings and network, with a very large US Embassy.
In that, if the UN ever get to go to Syria (Via intervention) and it becomes a ‘Mission’, then just expect the cost of living to double, as that is what they do best.
Posted by: kev | Jun 6 2013 6:09 utc | 90
debsisdead (82)
Even so I would like to point out that nowhere did I write that I supported Erdogan’s involvement in Syria, nor did I try & support his policies on anything else.
From what I see so far nobody (and certainly not myself) understood you to endorse erdogan, don’t worry.
The fact may be unpalatable, but the last time the people of Turkey were asked who should govern them, they chose Erdogan’s administration by a considerable margin. In 2002 the AKP won nearly two thirds of the seats in Parliament becoming the first party in Turkey to win a large enough mandate to govern on their own without requiring a coalition partner. In 2007 the AKP was the first a party in power to increase its votes for a second term in more than 50 years.
I did and do not dispute the fact that erdogans party won elections.
I do, however, assert that
– winning an election is not neccessarily, and actually not usually, indicating that a majority likes ones politics, even less so over the full term. Furthermore there can be, and often is, a diverse set of other reasons for votes.
To cite just one example: One major and possibly the decisive reason for hollande to win the elections was the fact that very many french wanted to be sure to get rid of sarkozy.
Another often overlooked fact is that often elections are critically influenced or even won by non-voters (as in “I’ll never vote left but I damn sure don’t want sarkozy again neither. So I’ll not vote at all although I voted for the conservatives for 25 years”)
The citizens of Istanbul are not rioting because Turkey stuck its nose in Syria, they are rioting because Erdogan & his cobbers want to build over one of the last parks in the city.
That statement invites strong doubts. As shown by e.g. brian (84) that statement actually shows untenable.
Quite probably both reasons (and some more) added up and cumulated reached critical mass.
In other words when Turks vote next time the party they select will be the one that voters believe will do the most for Turks …
Again, I strongly doubt that although it basically follows the basic credo – and propaganda – for democracy.
Reality shows otherwise again and again. Actually, polls show that the majority in most countries tend to believe that *no party* will do what they promise and that *no party* will do what’s best for the country (which btw. isn’t even possible for the simple fact that “the best for the country” is naturally defined very diversely).
If people vote at all *for* a party based on political programs, they usually do that focussed on 1 or 2 issues they consider as strategically important.
An example that comes to mind is the classical “the conservatives value economie higher, and so do I” – vs. – “the socialists value social issues and improvement for the needy higher, and so do I”, complemented by the more recent “the green party values the environment and, to a degree social issues higher, and so do I”.
Furthermore there are “holy issues” in every culture such as the protection of children and, immanently coming with democracy, more or less equality. Based on that there are absolute killer events, “crimes” that are, of course comitted to varying degree by most politician (e.g. nepotism, corruption) which, however, must stay discrete and low level.
Research shows that those issues even trump party association, that is, even (most) conservative voters strongly detest corruption of a high degree such as the billions shifted by erdogan toward favourites, supporters etc.
On a more personal note I think that simply not making untenable statements (or at least reacting constructively when found in flagranti) is wiser than remarks associating others with terms like “silly”.
Last but not least let’s quickly have a look at another “standard wisdom”:
Nobody ever changed their point of view because someone argued better than they
Often said/written this is actually evidently false.
First, it’s not about p.o.v. but about learning and growing. A p.o.v. after all is a means and not a goal.
Second, we all (O.K. except americans, maybe *g) again and again changed our beliefs and or extended our knowledge because someone argued better (I take that to mean “knew better” or “proposed a better/advanced/more informed view” or similar).
We are humans and as such we are bound to err, to have limited or even wrong views and beliefs. Happily, though, we are also almost bound to refine, extend or even change our views and beliefs.
So, let me suggest to be more generous with others and more stringent with ourselves.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jun 6 2013 6:41 utc | 93
87) It is a dictatorship, maybe you would prefer to live in one, most people don’t. If you find Western democracies repressive, it is plain stupid to expect a better life in Syria.
This here is a probably accurate description how it started:
Damascus // Protests in Syria escalated yesterday when demonstrators openly calling for a “revolution” in the southern city of Deraa clashed with security forces.
Tear gas was fired into the crowd, which had gathered for the funerals of two protesters who were shot dead by security units on Friday, civil-rights campaigners and opposition groups said.
As many as 10,000 people were estimated to have turned out for yesterday’s funeral procession, defying a heavy security presence that had been reinforced since the killings.
Some of the demonstrators chanted “revolution, revolution” as they followed the coffins of Wissam Ayyash and Mahmoud al Jawabra through the town. Two other protesters died from gunshot wounds inflicted on Friday, bringing the total number of dead to four.
Reuters, one of the few independent news agencies at the scene, quoted mourners shouting “God, Syria, Freedom. Whoever kills his own people is a traitor”. Dozens of protesters were arrested, opposition groups said.
By the afternoon, Deraa had reportedly been sealed off by police as helicopters patrolled overhead, with people allowed to leave but no one from the surrounding tribal region allowed into the city.
In contrast to Friday’s smaller protest, however, security forces did not use live ammunition on the crowd yesterday, relying instead on tear gas and batons.
The authorities in Damascus also announced an investigation into Friday’s killings, with unconfirmed reports that senior security officials from Deraa had been ordered back to the capital as part of the inquiry.
SANA, the official news agency, cited a ministry of interior source as saying a committee would investigate the use of lethal force. It said “the necessary measures will be taken” and any member of the security forces found to have committed abuse would be “held to account”.
That measure was welcomed by human-rights monitors in Syria. “It is an important and essential step to have taken. There needs to be a quick and serious investigation into this incident, otherwise I fear the situation could deteriorate,” said Abdul Karim Rehawe, head of the Syrian Human Rights League.
Until a week ago Syria had been quiet, an apparent oasis of calm in a region gripped by popular revolts. But a series of small-scale, isolated protests, some involving fewer than a dozen people and lasting only a matter of minutes, appears to have snowballed.
On Wednesday, more than 100 people staged a rare demonstration outside the interior ministry in central Damascus, demanding the release of political prisoners. Met by baton-wielding police, more than 30 were arrested and on Thursday were charged with defaming the state, a crime under emergency laws that carries a lengthy prison term.
The following day, protests erupted in Damascus, Homs, Banias and Deraa, with the security forces in each place responding differently.
In Banias there was no violence as protesters read out a list of demands, including calls for an end of corruption, a reduction in the price of electricity and the reinstating of school teachers sacked for wearing a full Islamic veil.
In Damascus, suspected protesters were arrested after calls for “freedom” were made following prayers at the historic Umayyad mosque, but without use of lethal violence.
In Deraa, however, security units quickly shifted from using water cannons to firing live ammunition, according to witnesses. Notably, it is the same city that yesterday saw a large-scale follow-up protest, while the others remained quiet.
The Syrian authorities, including the official media, have portrayed the protesters as rioters acting on the instigation of foreign powers, with the security forces responding only in self-defence. State television implied that the US, a longtime foe of the Syrian government, was behind the protests.
The speed with which protests met with deadly force has unnerved civil-rights activists who were hoping to usher in peaceful reforms through public demonstrations.
“I’m afraid, it’s shocking to have unarmed demonstrators shot,” said one campaigner, an advocate of non-violent action, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of his remarks.
“It’s a dangerous time, it’s hard to step back once people have been killed – things quickly pass the point of no return,” he said.
“You can’t imagine how angry people are [about the shooting]. If there is no effort to remedy this [by the authorities], it will be a disaster.”
Another Syrian supporting the protesters said the country was approaching a crossroads.
“There are two paths open to us, one is to be like Egypt, with peaceful change, the other is to go the way of Libya where it has been too violent,” he said. “I hope for the first, but I’m worried that the wrong path may already have been chosen.”
and yes, it was manufactured
This from February 2011
Civil society activists in Syria have been mulling over why the protest fizzled. While all agree the pervasive security apparatus played a key role, there are also widespread complaints that, unlike the demonstrations in Cairo and Tunis, the one planned for Syria had no domestic roots.
“This call for a day of anger came from outside of the country, from people with no track record and that no one had heard of,” said Mazen Darwich, a leading civil liberties campaigner. “It was a disaster, the organisers were less democratic than the security services.”
He said those behind the Facebook campaign were overseas armchair revolutionaries, safely away from any repercussions of a failed revolt.
“They have no understanding of what happened in Egypt or Tunisia and they don’t understand Syria,” he said. “They think you can just say, ‘Tomorrow will be the revolution’ and it will happen.”
The failure also laid bare the limitations of online organising in Syria. High-speed internet is available in the country, and many users bypass the clumsy censorship imposed on sites such as Facebook. But most Syrians are not online, especially the poor majority who would presumably form the core of any demonstrations.
And this is how it escalated – from May 2011
Tribal justice blamed for deaths of 120 Syrian police and soldiers
In the two months since an anti-government uprising began in Syria, more than 120 members Syrian police and soldiers have been killed, authorities say.
Related
If that number is correct, the Syrian government has lost as many security forces since March as the US military has in Afghanistan since the start of the year – 127 killed in action – and more than the British army has lost in any single year during the decade-long Afghan war.
Officials say that scale of violence is clear evidence that Syria is facing an insurgency by Islamist terrorists.
Civil rights activists in Syria acknowledge religious militants are likely to have been involved in some killings. They cite a handful of well-publicised atrocities in which the bodies of soldiers were mutilated. There have also been claims of mosques calling for jihad as security units face off against demonstrators.
But residents say the reality is typically far more mundane, especially in the tribal regions where many of the attacks against government forces appear to have occurred.
Rather than a conspiracy of Islamic fundamentalists, supplied with weapons and cash by Syria’s enemies, local inhabitants and tribe members say many of those shooting at the security services are motivated by traditions of tribal justice and dignity, self-defence, a sense of powerlessness and years of pent up anger and frustration.
For all its hallmarks as a modern secular state, Syria remains a complex mosaic of tribes, sects and powerful extended families. Loyalty to clan often supersedes allegiance to country and tribal justice regularly supplants civil law.
Rural Syria, where this hierarchy of loyalties is most prevalent, is home to a majority of the country’s 22 million people. Nevertheless, large scale migration means tribal influences have reached into the teeming working-class suburbs of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and other major cities.
This clash of tribal identity with state authority is woven into the violence that has swept the country since protests began two months ago this week. The absence of any credible prosecution of those responsible for excessive violence against unarmed protesters has given way to more traditional ways of holding people to account.
“If you kill someone from a tribe and the government doesn’t deliver justice, then the tribe will see justice is done in its own way, which means blood-for-blood,” a member of one of Syria’s major clans said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of his remarks. “My people believe in revenge,” he continued. “If one of the tribe is shot by a member of the security services and the killer is not properly punished by the government, then another security man will be killed to settle the score. It’s simple: an eye-for-an-eye. …
That reaction to what many saw as official impunity took root on March 18 during the first rally in Deraa, the crucible of the uprising, when four people were gunned down as they demanded the release of 15 local schoolchildren who had been arrested and abused by the security forces for writing political graffiti on a wall
The powerful tribal families in the southern Houran region, which has its capital Deraa, asked the authorities to discipline security personnel involved in killings, particularly the senior officers who gave orders to open fire on unarmed protesters during the first demonstration.
Despite promises of justice and the sacking of local officials, lawyers say no legal action has been taken against any security force suspects, in stark contrast to the rapid arrests and referral to the courts of political dissidents and those suspected of anti-government violence.”..
“There is no independent judiciary in Syria, no trustworthy legal process that will punish anyone working for the government for their crimes,” said one man, who refused even to identify his tribe.
The government’s inaction led influential figures in Deraa’s strongest clans to conclude both that justice would not be done and that they would be shown no mercy for their public dissent, he said. Similar calculations appear to have fuelled violence elsewhere in the country, some of which has targeted security forces.”
Posted by: somebody | Jun 6 2013 7:52 utc | 95
|
