Syria: The "West's" Muddled Policy
We know that the CIA is long involved in distributing weapons and intelligence to the Syrian insurgents. The CIA organized weapons from Croatia and Libya and distributed those. The bills for those weapons were payed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. New weapons are still arriving. There are also U.S. military special operation detachments in Jordan and Turkey training some of the insurgents. As this involvement is already well known and has been reported on by several outlets it is a bit weird that the Obama administration is now somewhat agonizing about "officially" delivering weapons to the insurgents:A month ago Obama administration officials promised to deliver arms and ammunition to the Syrian rebels in the hope of reversing the tide of a war that had turned against an embattled opposition.There is a lot of whining in that piece about "legal restrains" and question of who the weapons should go to. The legal restrains, which the Wall Street Journal explores in detail, are not the real issue. As usual international law means nothing to the U.S. and Obama simply ignores it. The real reason the weapons are a no go is that some grown ups are holding them up in fear of putting them into the wrong hands:But interviews with American, Western and Middle Eastern officials show that the administration’s plans are far more limited than it has indicated in public and private.
The plan — made possible after Mr. Obama signed a secret “finding” that circumvents international laws prohibiting lethal support to groups trying to overthrow a sitting government — continues to face bipartisan skepticism in Congress.
...
“One of the biggest impediments has been the cohesion and the organization of the opposition relative to the Assad forces,” Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said in an interview.
The Free Syrian Army is nothing but a marketing front for a whole bunch of disunited criminal and jihadi groups. Weapons flowing to it would certainly end up in hands of those the "west" would not like to be armed too much or to win the war. The administration has no real plans for Syria. It has no strategy and no idea who it wants to come out winning the war. But as long as the country gets destroyed it seems to be fine with the war proceeding endlessly.
While Washington is still hand wringing over the issue London has decided and prime minister Cameron will not, for political resistance in his own party, give any weapons to the insurgents:Mr Cameron has been told by Tory whips that there is little prospect of winning a vote on arming rebels in the Commons.Good luck finding those "moderate elements". They are an illusion.
...
A source close to Downing Street last night confirmed that Mr Cameron is not planning to arm Syrian rebels.British forces will instead draw up plans to help train and advise moderate elements of the opposition forces fighting the regime.
But at least the Brits have lost two other illusion. The first is that the U.S. knows what it is doing, the second one is that the Syrian government will lose the fight:
John Kerry, the US Secretary of State is attempting to push rebels and the regime to the negotiating table.The "west" has somewhat recognized that its policies on Syria were deeply wrong. But it seems difficult to publicly acknowledging that and to openly change course. We therefore get a muddled policy with a lot of agonizing and, like in other cases, no real strategy behind it. From Syria's perspective this muddled "western" policy is not as bad as others could be.However, British government sources have expressed frustration that they have little idea what he is seeking.
...
Ministers believe it could take 18 months before President Assad is forced to the negotiating table, although it could take significantly longer after the advance of the Syrian government forces.
Posted by b on July 15, 2013 at 17:25 UTC | Permalink
next page »Life would be so much simpler for the R2P vampires if the elephant in the room would just go back to Russia and let US-NAZO get on with what it does best - slaughtering undefended women and children.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 15 2013 19:26 utc | 2
There is a continuous buzz on the web and in some arab papers that Hezbollah has been buying full cargaison of arms from al Nusra who rip them from the FSA thus the war between the latter two that we are now seeing as the West deliver them through Jordan and Turkey to FSA.The Syrian state on his part is sequestering as many loads as it can alternatively Syrian Army is buying or destroying them by missile.
Posted by: Nobody | Jul 15 2013 19:31 utc | 3
There is a report in RT that Israeli warplanes attacked Latakia last week and they originated from bases in Turkey!
http://rt.com/news/israel-strike-syria-turkey-089/
This sounds unlikely. Is the any reason to believe this report?
Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 15 2013 19:35 utc | 4
According to a reliable source, there is now a rebel siege of the western Government occupied quarters of Aleppo, refusing access of food and medicine.
The source, Grillo, mainly talks about the sufferings of the Christians, and so when he talks about general suffering, I tend to believe him.
I advise: look at this question. If true, this is going to be a great catastrophe.
Posted by: alexno | Jul 15 2013 19:44 utc | 5
@3 yes that would make good economic sense. Hezbullah buy the arms from al Nusra then sell them back to the Saudis.
Posted by: dh | Jul 15 2013 19:46 utc | 6
The Wall Street Journal
" An Israeli airstrike inside Syria earlier this month targeted advanced antiship weapons supplied by Russia, U.S. officials said Sunday.
The strike took place on July 5 near the port city of Latakia and targeted Yakhont missiles that are part of a Russian-supplied coastal defense system.
It was the fourth known airstrike by Israel inside Syria this year....
U.S. officials wouldn't provide details about the July 5 strike....
Israeli officials believe Damascus is too preoccupied with the country's civil war to respond militarily to limited Israeli incursions targeting suspected shipments to Hezbollah. A counter-strike on Israel could trigger a wider war, officials say.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a televised interview Sunday declined to either confirm or deny responsibility for the Syrian strike. "
Posted by: some1 | Jul 15 2013 20:22 utc | 7
some1
As usual, Israel bombs and bombs and bombs...and bombs (add some more "bombs" here) and then they cry out how hated they are. Like a man Crying when beating his wife.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 15 2013 20:36 utc | 8
re 7
The Wall Street Journal
" An Israeli airstrike inside Syria earlier this month targeted advanced antiship weapons supplied by Russia, U.S. officials said Sunday.>
We've already discussed this question. Pre/post satellite images don't show the expected secondary explosions necessary to justify the Israeli story.
Posted by: alexno | Jul 15 2013 21:13 utc | 9
B, I think you're incorrect when you write this: "The 'west' has somewhat recognized that its policies on Syria were deeply wrong. But it seems difficult to publicly acknowledging that and to openly change course."
Supposing that by 'west' you mean 'the most powerful western governments', I would say that the most powerful powerful figures in these governments do not recognize at all that their policies toward Syria have been (morally) wrong... But rather, some figures/elements within these governments recognize that their policies have been largely based on incorrect information and incorrect analysis. That's a very different matter.
As to the degree to which they want to actually change course, I'm not seeing much evidence that this is the case. The only significant way in which they could change course for the better (and save Syria's people from some degree of the suffering that now lies ahead of them) would be to DROP their embrace of the condition that 'Asad has to go' as a precondition for any talks, while they also DROP the aid they're giving to the opposition and STOP their allies the Saudis and Qataris from giving such aid, as well.
No, they're not about to do that. The course they're on-- which leads only to the progressive destruction of Syria's society-- is not one that most of the powerful actors in western governments particularly want to change. Because, you know, it's Dreadful Old Syria we're talking about there...
b: Weapons flowing to it would certainly end up in hands of those the "west" would not like to be armed too much or to win the war.
It'll cost them! Guns aren't free.
from al Jazeerah, regarding al-Qaeda's Islamic State in Iraq:
... But he told us: if we wanted to cut the supply lines it is easier for us to take the warehouses of the FSA. Anyhow we are buying weapons from the FSA. we bought 200 anti-aircraft missiles and Koncourse anti tank weapons. We have good relations with our brothers in the FSA. For us, the infidels are those who cooperate with the West to fight Islam.If confirmed, purchasing weapons from the Free Syria Army won't be good news for the West.
It is men like these the West doesn't want to arm and it has urged the FSA to retake areas under their control. It could be a recipe for yet another war within a war that will decide the new face of Syria.
@10
People in the US National Security Council and State Department would have to be fools not to recognize that everything they have tried, on the military side and on the political side, has not worked and everything they have predicted has not come true, and what they actually have promoted is al Qaeda in yet another country, added to failures in Iraq and Libya.
The US Defense Department has never been in favor of attacking Syria, just as it was against Libya. Except with Syria they have been burned once in Libya, and Syria is much more complicated. So the War Sucker Obama had to turn to the CIA, and we know how effective they are. They make a good pair. Dumb 'n Dumber.
"People in the US National Security Council and State Department would have to be fools not to recognize that everything they have tried, on the military side and on the political side, has not worked and everything they have predicted has not come true, and what they actually have promoted is al Qaeda in yet another country, added to failures in Iraq and Libya."
Whether it has worked is a moot point: the likelihood is that they are well aware that they are working with al qaeda in Syria, as they were in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. And as they do in the Caucasus, the Balkans and Central Asia.
Their agent is Prince Bandar who, employing US funds, moves his various contingents of "jihadists" like chess pieces, from battlefield to battle field.
The Prince's Own Light Infantry (and Special Services) are the Indian Army of the Empire today, handily off the books, in budgetary terms (money is channeled to them in a variety of ways including drug dealing, and plausibly deniable.
Posted by: bevin | Jul 16 2013 0:47 utc | 13
@13 Whether it has worked is a moot point
What they wanted is Assad's hide on the wall, as a signal to Iran. Syria is all about Iran. Overall, al Qaeda has been more than helpful to the US Security State. That's a given.
"Syria is all about Iran."
And for Israel entirely about Hezbollah. I wouldn't be too surprised if Israel didn't find an excuse in all of this to attempt to raze Lebanon once again.
I hope, then, Syria would act on the Golan.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 16 2013 1:12 utc | 15
@15
It's a myth that US foreign policy is a a subject of Israel's whims. The US has had a policy against Iran independence for over fifty years.
@Don "t's a myth that US foreign policy is a a subject of Israel's whims"
It wasn't my intention to state that, if I did. I was just talking about Israel.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 16 2013 1:55 utc | 17
"Syria is all about Iran."
"And for Israel entirely about Hezbollah."
It is all about hegemony: what Hezbollah represents is the principle of communal resistance. The enormous power that the determined solidarity of even a small, totally surrounded and impoverished community, emerging from decades of fascistic rule by its enemies and centuries of marginalisation, produces.
Evo Morales represents the same principle. A people united can never be defeated.
Posted by: bevin | Jul 16 2013 3:04 utc | 19
@bevin
Agree on hegemony, which is why "negotiations" over the Iran "nuclear threat" is a farce, and is why the assault on Syria is solely because it is a perceived essential ally of Iran and so destroying Syria will cripple Iran and incidentally help Israel by hurting support for Hez -- farcical thinking but that's what drives these criminals.
Syria: The "West's" Muddled Policy --Yes
Spin 101 from the Washington Post: "In Syria, infighting between al-Qaida groups and mainstream rebels"
You know, mainstream like soft rock, or smooth jazz.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 16 2013 3:52 utc | 21
It's a myth that US foreign policy is a a subject of Israel's whims. The US has had a policy against Iran independence for over fifty years. Posted by: Don Bacon | Jul 15, 2013 9:25:16 PM | 16That's a non sequitur. It's perfectly possible for a policy to start independently of "Israel's whims" (note the rhetorical exaggeration ad absurdum built into that phrase), but later to become subject to them. My own opinion is that Israel's power over US foreign policy is much greater in negative than positive terms. That is to say, Israel does not have the power to command the US to do something that it does not wish to do (such as to pre-emptively destroy Iran using military force), but it does have the power to veto things. This is not surprising organisationally. If you have a limited number of important agents of influence in a foreign government, it's a likely outcome. The very first example of such an Israeli veto on US "foreign policy" that I can recall discovering myself (and you will note that in fact the phrase "foreign policy" is also ill-chosen, since it is covert ops), was this: prior to 9/11, there were Iranian IRGC cadres fighting alongside the CIA and al-Qaeda against Milosevic in the Balkans. Immediately after 9/11, one of the first things Israeli agents of influence in the US Congress did was veto this, via some bruising Senate and House Committee hearings, not all of which were kept private; the critturs spoke to the media, in a coded but effective way. I remember seeing the critturs being scathing in YouTube clips from US TV, but it was only a few years later that I understood what I had been seeing.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 16 2013 3:56 utc | 22
@Don No prob, I know what you mean. I hear the same thing all the time.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 16 2013 4:00 utc | 23
ot but: Could they bury Manning's trial anymore?
Now he's just "Soldier" in headlines. They won't even use his first name.
USA Today headline: "Soldier who leaked documents wants charge dismissed"
Am I being crazy?
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 16 2013 4:03 utc | 24
@RB #22
That's [US policy independent of Israel] a non sequitur. . .My own opinion is that Israel's power over US foreign policy is much greater in negative than positive terms.
non sequitur -- An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence
An invalid conclusion?
No proof of that. You claim that Israel has veto power over US foreign policy because "Israeli agents of influence in the US Congress" stopped the use of "Iranian IRGC cadres fighting alongside the CIA and al-Qaeda against Milosevic in the Balkans." Wow.
So, lacking evidence, Israel has no such control over US policy in the Middle East, and it's a valid conclusion that US foreign policy in the ME is purely a US policy, which is logical, that the US policy favors the US, not a country smaller than New Jersey with less people. US policy happens to coincide with Israel policy, is all. There is no "veto power."
You claim that Israel has veto power over US foreign policy because "Israeli agents of influence in the US Congress" stopped the use of "Iranian IRGC cadres fighting alongside the CIA and al-Qaeda against Milosevic in the Balkans." Wow. So, lacking evidence... Posted by: Don Bacon | Jul 16, 2013 1:43:37 AM | 25There is evidence. It's a little impolite to imply I just invented this story out of thin air and posted it here as accomplished fact. I catalogued it long ago on my blog and like so much else it slipped under the general radar. But here it is: http://www.kosovo.net/rpc3.html
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 16 2013 8:00 utc | 27
You may say that the above only manages to establish that IRGC was present in the Balkans, but not that Israel played a veto role in denying the CIA the right to collaborate with it. I don't think I could ever find the relevant Congressional Intelligence Committee hearings, which took place in 2002 or 2003, at least not without a lot of research, but as I recall it, Yossef Bodansky led the attack. Bodansky was Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives from 1988 to 2004. In the 1980s, he served as a senior consultant for the Depts of Defense and State. He was therefore in a powerful position to fire off quite a lot of intel and pseudo-intel at the Congress critturs. His method was to argue that Iran and the Sunni Jihadis were jointly conducting a systematic global offensive against USAia, Mom, and apple pie. This of course was untrue; the truth was that Khomeinist Iran saw itself as a natural ally of USAia, mom and apple pie against the godless communists, and was very aggrieved that Israel was poisoning the attitude of the US Congress against it. You can see a good example of the way Bodansky wove fact and fiction together regarding the Balkans here.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 16 2013 8:37 utc | 28
This Guardian story of Apr 2002 gives at least some of the story. The key paragraph is this one:
Iranian and Afghan veterans' training camps had also been identified in Bosnia. Later, in the Dayton Accords of Nov 1995, the stipulation appeared that all foreign forces be withdrawn. This was a deliberate attempt to cleanse Bosnia of Iranian-run training camps. The CIA's main opponents in Bosnia were now the mojahedin fighters and their Iranian trainers, whom the Pentagon had been helping to supply months earlier.
But I suspect that attempts to cleanse Bosnia of foreign forces after the Dayton Accords were rather cosmetic, otherwise this scandal in 2002, which must have given rise to the Congressional Committee hearings I was talking about, with Bodansky and so on, would hardly have been necessary. As you can see, the article goes on to talk about Mossad on the ground, as well. That's why I like this story. All the supposed enemies are actually working together against the real, common enemy, viz the godless communists.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 16 2013 9:05 utc | 29
"David Cameron’s support for the Syrian uprising has been questioned after revelations that his top aide’s firm worked for the rebels.
The UK arm of strategist Lynton Crosby’s lobbying empire represented the Syrian National Council.
Mr Cameron stepped up his calls for action – including arming forces trying to oust bloody dictator Bashar al-Assad – after hiring the Australian as his elections adviser last year."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-support-syria-uprising-2056411
Posted by: brian | Jul 16 2013 9:07 utc | 30
"As long as [Syria] gets destroyed [Washington] seems to be fine with the war proceeding endlessly"
There is really nothing else that can or should be said. This has been the truth from the beginning.
Posted by: Earwig | Jul 16 2013 12:32 utc | 31
This completely ridiculous bs just in. Now the rebels don't have to worry about being down wind:
UK says it will issue Syrian rebels with chemical warfare defenses including hoods, drugs
Published July 16, 2013
Associated Press
LONDON – Britain says it is rushing to issue Syria's rebel fighters with chemical warfare protection, including escape hoods, drugs and chemical detector paper.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague told Parliament Tuesday that roughly 655,000 pounds (nearly $1 million) worth of equipment would be sent to the rebels as "a matter of special urgency
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 16 2013 13:17 utc | 32
@Earwig #31
Correct. A friendly government in Syria would be nice, but a destroyed, inoperative Syria would do. But neither is assured at this point.
The UK had to settle for hoods and drugs because they can't do more.
Senior military figures have warned the Prime Minister that with the momentum on the side of President Assad's regime, sending small arms and missiles is unlikely to make a difference.There are also growing concerns that arms sent to Syria could end up in the hands of extremists rather than moderate rebels, potentially presenting a long-term threat to British security.
The Empire has been reduced to a cheap chemicals shop.
Following Don's link, more evidence of the Saudis getting too big for their britches.
Saudi Arabia throws down a gauntlet by targeting missiles at Iran and Israel
The disengagement of President Barack Obama’s America from the Middle East has forced the kingdom to square up to Iran and Israel
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 16 2013 13:45 utc | 35
Lol: what a transparent louse the author is (from @35):
"In Iraq and Syria, Iran can be found backing murderous Shi’ite Muslim militias such as Hizbollah...The Saudis, on the other hand, are committed to supporting Sunni Muslim opposition groups"
Yes. One man's "Opposition group" is another man's "murderous militia" indeed.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 16 2013 13:51 utc | 36
"A friendly government in Syria would be nice, but a destroyed, inoperative Syria would do."
I think they prefer a destroyed inoperative Syria. Friendly governments cost a lot to buy. I think what we are seeing is a continuation of the NeoCon organised chaos strategy sold to them by the Izzies. I think the days of the western bought "strongman" are over. Perhaps with the exeption of Egypt.
I have been heavily influenced in this thinking by Jonathon Cook's Israel and the Clash of Civilizations. Almost everything in the book has come true since it was published in 2008.
I agree with Don that it's all about Iran, you need to wreck Syria and cut off Hez or there aint no attack on Iran. Hez will start raining missiles down on Israel. Now I don't imagine that US planners give a hot shit what happens to Israel, I do think they are worried about Israel's reaction.
Sorry b, I don't think the west has realised the policy was/is wrong. When you use proxies to fight your war for you, planning can only account for so much. They're just letting things continue and playing it by ear. At the end of the day they want Syria smashed up, the journey isn't as important as the destination in this case.
Posted by: Billy boy | Jul 16 2013 14:49 utc | 37
Saudi Arabia throws down a gauntlet by targeting missiles at Iran and Israel. The disengagement of President Barack Obama’s America from the Middle East has forced the kingdom to square up to Iran and Israel. Posted by: guest77 | Jul 16, 2013 9:45:53 AM | 35That Con Coughlin ("Lol: what a transparent louse the author is") story is reacting to this one from the day before, and look at the picture. There are no missiles. Period. When Coughlin says "So we should not be surprised that the latest images of Saudi ballistic missiles directed at Iran and Israel bear the Saudis’ distinctive green emblem of two swords beneath a palm tree," he is talking about a non-existent photo that exists only in his own imagination. And anyway, if Saudi did point missiles at Israel, it would just be a diversionary gesture, more or less in the nature of an in-joke. And finally, Morsi was not "on a course of rapprochement with Iran." That is not what his deposition was all about.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 16 2013 15:06 utc | 38
Speaking of chemical weapons, the US is calling for someone to make Syria's disappear, according to a piece in FP. Here's a teaser.
The Sarin Sweepstakes
Is the Pentagon holding a contest to make Syria's chemical weapons disappear?On May 24, an anonymous party posted a curious challenge online, offering $50,000 to anyone who can destroy or neutralize large amounts of chemical munitions. The proposal, made on the crowdsourcing website InnoCentive, was odd in a number of ways. First, Innocentive usually asks for ideas on how to solve technical problems, not military ones. Second, the wording of the offer strongly suggests that it was made by someone in the U.S. government who is looking for ways to deal with the Syrian chemical weapons program.
"an anonymous party posted a curious challenge online, offering $50,000 to anyone who can destroy or neutralize large amounts of chemical munitions."
These cheap fucks. They were paying Snowden 4x that.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 16 2013 15:25 utc | 40
The worm turns.
McClatchy, July 15
BEIRUT — The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency warned Lebanese officials last week that al Qaida-linked groups are planning a campaign of bombings that will target Beirut’s Hezbollah-dominated southern suburbs as well as other political targets associated with the group or its allies in Syria, Lebanese officials said Monday. . ."Yes, a warning came from the CIA,” said a Hezbollah internal security commander who spoke on the condition that he not be identified because he was not authorized to talk to reporters. “They passed us this information through the mukhabarat (military intelligence), but we had our own information about the bombs.”
I have been trying to assess the situation in northern Syria, specifically the city of Aleppo. There seems to be a lot of misinformation, not surprisingly as to which sides controls what. Also when they say are laying siege to parts of Aleppo, this makes no real sense to me. If you lay a siege you need a steady supply of arms and food etc... So how can they lay a siege unless they have a direct route to outside the country or large parts of the country where regular supplies are available. Can anyone shed light on this?
Posted by: ana souri | Jul 16 2013 15:34 utc | 42
If the rebels control the countryside around Aleppo, they can certainly maintain a blockade on the part of the city which has not surrendered to them, and that seems to be what they have been doing. But the main stories about this which I saw appeared one week ago. This YouTube video by Syrian Girl Partisan is dated Jul 9, and this Reuters story is dated Jul 10.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 16 2013 15:41 utc | 43
An excellent piece on the supposed split between a mighty FSA and a smaller AQ in Syria -- not at all true.
Global Research, July 13 (excerpt)
Reuters is pushing a false narrative upon its readers to uphold the image that the majority of “rebels” fighting inside Syria are moderate secularists under the command of the “FSA”, or “Supreme Military Council”. The truth of the matter has always been that Jabhat al Nusra – who are one and the same as Al Qaeda in Iraq with slightly different outlooks for their respective homelands – along with the more populist, and larger in number Salafi militia, such as Ahrar al-Sham, who operate under the umbrella group the Syrian Islamic Front (SIF), represent the vast majority of opposition fighters in Syria. These groups have close links, and it is likely that fighters often interchange depending on expertise, experience and geographical requirements. Since the onset they have cooperated closely with logistics and paramilitary operations.
Re Aleppo seige (ana souri | Jul 16, 2013 11:34:31 AM | 42), Syrian Girl Partisan posted another video here, 2 days ago: "The People of Aleppo React to Siege by the FSA."
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 16 2013 15:53 utc | 45
Sorry I didn't close the tag, hope it doesn't affect the thread.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 16 2013 15:54 utc | 46
"Syrian Girl Partisan posted another video"
Gosh, those people over there have funny names. Oh well, there's no accounting for local customs.
Posted by: Mooser | Jul 16 2013 16:03 utc | 47
"There are also growing concerns that arms sent to Syria could end up in the hands of extremists rather than moderate rebels"
Yup. "moderate rebels". For thoswe who don't know, a "moderate rebel" is one who, when asked "What are you rebeling against?" does not answer with an insolent smile and "Whaddayougot?" Instead he politely details the specific offenses he hopes to rememdy with his (or her) rebellion.
Posted by: Mooser | Jul 16 2013 16:08 utc | 48
David Cameron accused of betraying Syrian rebels
Syria's top rebel commander has accused David Cameron of betrayal after the Prime Minister abandoned plans to arm the Syrian opposition.
The British refusal will be seen as a particular blow to rebel morale given that recent signals suggested the government was planning the very opposite tack.Only last month, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, insisted that Britain "shouldn't rule any option out", claiming that concerns about arms earmarked for secular rebel groups falling into jihadist hands were exaggerated.
One source suggested that such rhetoric had simply been part of a plan by Britain to encourage Damascus to take part in the forthcoming Syria peace conference in Geneva, scheduled for later this summer.
"This was never about arming the rebels," he said. "It was simply a diplomatic bargaining chip to say to Assad: 'if you don't come to the table, we can arm the rebels'."
Was the U.S. saying "we are arming the rebels" also just a propaganda ploy? Seems somewhat likely to me.
---
Pakistan Taliban say no shift to Syria
Pakistani Taliban commanders Tuesday rejected suggestions they were sending fighters to Syria, saying some have gone there independently but the movement's focus remained in Pakistan.
...
A senior commander who sits on the shura or ruling council of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) told AFP there was no tactical shift and no decision had been made to send forces to Syria."There is no reality in these reports, we have far better targets in the region, NATO troops headed by the Americans are present in Afghanistan," he said on condition of anonymity.
"We are already in a war with Pakistani troops. We support the mujahideen's struggle in Syria but in our opinion, we have a lot more to do here in Pakistan and Afghanistan."
---
I do not buy into the premise of "secular FSA" against Jihadis as there are no secular FSA. If there is infighting though it is between various Islamist groups.
The writer works for a zionist outlet - so beware ...
Syria: Rebel In-Fighting Weakens Uprising
Another rebel weakness overall is declining popular support. Over the past 18 months, local populations under rebel control in the north (from which we receive the most reliable reporting) have become more alienated by moderate rebel domination, which often has been dysfunctional and corrupt. Increasingly, Islamist rule became a preference, as it was accompanied by far less corruption, civil courts, and even some social services. With the rise of ISIL, however, much of that appeal has dissipated as well, with its more rigorous imposition of strict Sharia rule sullied by executions of inhabitants for alleged collaboration with the Assad regime or moral offenses.Clearly, the collective opposition cause in Syria is in crisis. The most formidable rebel forces remain Islamic extremist, but they and their rivals are wasting combat power in self-destructive in-fighting. Moreover, the Jihadists’ rising militancy, broader ambitions and aggressiveness against rival rebel groups have not only potentially eroded their own ability to obtain foreign arms, but hurt efforts to secure arms for other rebels as well.
All this is splendid news for the Assad regime (and its allies) because earlier this year the government probably hoped only to keep hanging on. Now, however, it has been able to set its sights higher on the possibility of regaining control over still more lost territory.
On Aleppo
Syria Report, July 10
Food embargo on two million people in West Aleppo
I'm sorry, Don, but that article reads like propaganda to me. It says repeatedly that the govt is breaking the seige and supplying food. It's incoherent and self-contradictory. It says helicopters regularly make food drops, but the link it gives is actually to a story of a helicopter being shot down by rebels. It looks to me as if the story has been written truthfully, admitting that the govt cannot currently break the seige and get food into the city (we're talking about 2 million people here). But then someone has inserted repeated claims that the govt is getting food in, which contradict the rest of the text.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 16 2013 16:36 utc | 51
Why would the Taliban do such a PR campaign?
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/15/19486654-pakistani-taliban-we-sent-hundreds-of-fighters-to-syria?lite
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/jul/14/islamic-militants-leave-pakistan-fight-syria/
On another issue, I know from Kurdish friends that there has been heavy fighting between FSA and AQ related groups in North-Eastern Syria for more than three months.
Posted by: Mina | Jul 16 2013 16:44 utc | 52
On the vetting process
NPR, Jul 12 (excerpts) (warning -- NPR)
Many commanders say they are frustrated with the long vetting process by U.S. intelligence agents in Jordan, and a Saudi arms pipeline that is undependable. The military aid promised by President Obama in June has not arrived at all."We're very disappointed with what's happening," says Ahmad Ne'meh, a former air force officer who now heads the rebel military council in Dera'a.
"We did receive logistical support in terms of bulletproof vests, night vision goggles and security communication devices," he says.
To get the nonlethal U.S. gear, rebel fighters have to prove they are not Islamists. Every battle must be documented for U.S. agents at an operations room in Jordan, Ne'meh says. Other commanders confirm the process.
@RB #51
It's not necessarily propaganda. The idea that these affairs are somehow totally managed, including the information on them, and fully understandable, is faulty.
War is usually incoherent and self-contradictory by its very nature. War is inherently a confusing, disorganized, often imperceptible mess, even to the people trying to manage it. We do the best we can to understand it, considering all the sources available.
On Aleppo
Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi writes on the anti-Syria military command in the north
In any case, battalions apparently created specifically for foreign fighters appear now to be mirror fronts of the ISIS. For instance, Abu Omar ash-Shishani—the Chechen fighter who heads Jaysh al-Muhajireen—was appointed commander of northern operations in Syria for the ISIS by Baghdadi.In this context, it should be noted that Jaysh al-Muhajireen is suspected of being behind the beheadings shown in a video that purported to depict the murder of a Catholic priest, François Murad.
wiki-
Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar (Army of Emigrants and Helpers), formerly known as the Muhajireen Brigade are an Islamist jihadist group made up of foreign fighters active in the Syrian civil war against the Syrian Government.The group was established in summer 2012, and is lead by an ethnic Chechen, Abu Omar al-Chechen (alternatively Abu Omar al-Shishani), an Islamist fighter from Georgia’s Pankisi Gorge [3] who had fought in the First Chechen War and Second Chechen War against Russia. While many jihadists who come to Syria to fight are trained and dispersed to jihadist groups like Ahrar al-Sham and Al-Nusra, others like Abu Omar are allowed to form their own units.[1]
The group is composed of diverse nationalities. While the commander is a Chechen, other fighters are French, Turkish and Tajik. Many of them are veterans from other conflicts.[1] The Syrian rebels refer to them as "Turkish brothers."[4]
Those here who really want to know what is going on in Egypt can now watch Bassam Youssef with sub-titles
http://www.youtube.com/user/albernameg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x97bpVdtYiM&list=PLblwmgOZDF8ItBPW8TYhA9anmcRe2hwu_
(2nd Season, 29, 2 days before the June 30th demonstrations)
Bassam Youssef has started his show on Youtube beginning of 2011. So the whole chronicle of the Egyptian revolution is available.
Posted by: Mina | Jul 16 2013 18:37 utc | 56
@ 41.
Gotta love the McClatchy headline (with McC's pc spelling corrected).
Lebanese officials say CIA warned them of imminent al-CIA-duh attack on Hezbollah
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 16 2013 19:28 utc | 57
"To get the nonlethal U.S. gear, rebel fighters have to prove they are not Islamists.'
The mind boggles! But, at last, here is an opening for those pseudo socialists who regard the terrorists in Syria as revolutionaries.
Posted by: bevin | Jul 17 2013 1:59 utc | 58
And to get lethal Saudi gear, rebel fighters have to prove they are not Shi'ites or Christians.
Whole lotta provin' goin' on regarding what you're not.
Gives atheism a real boost of credibility, if you ask me.
Nobody doesn't like coyote worship.
At State, today:
MR. VENTRELL: Well, we’ve spoken at length about concerns we’ve had about extremism. You heard the President of the United States say we’re against all extremism. We’re against the extremists inside of Syria. Having said that, there is a moderate opposition that we’re trying to bolster, we’re trying to help, who can provide a path for a new and different Syria. And so we’ll continue to do our best to bolster them in collaboration with the U.K., in collaboration with other partners among the London 11 and others who share our same interests.
Hey, I think we've located a moderate oppositionist!
Hi, my name is Mostafa and I'll be your moderate insurgent today. I'm addressing you all because we badly need your help. We could have started a Facebook page, like We Need Your Weapons or something, or ask the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to make a YouTube video, but I prefer to speak straight to your heart. We promise you; we will do whatever you ask from us. We promise that every battle will be documented for your specialists - photos, YouTube, everything, we will send a full package to that operations room in Jordan. So you will see that we are really, really moderates. You can even get your NSA to spy on us to make sure we are really "clean cut". --Pepe Escobar, Asia Times
#Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 16, 2013 5:05:47 AM | 29
your guardian link turned up this paragraph
"Meanwhile, the secret services of Ukraine, Greece and Israel were busy arming the Bosnian Serbs."
so not only mossad but the greeks and Ukrainians as well
Posted by: jub | Jul 17 2013 7:59 utc | 61
AIPAC lobby's and bends/compels American policy to their whims and capricious desires. They will wine, dine & if that does not work they will smudge, smear and denigrate the person. Then they will threaten to destroy them. So yes, I do believe that Israel with its many faces and sources can and will push USgov and USpeople to do their bidding, either by compulsion or consent.
It's so evident that they mollify American students by continuously cramming Holocaust studies into their already limited attention span in the school year. You have already created a pro-Jewish, pro-israel group by the 12 grade.
Furthermore the Western powers that be, inspite of their initial enthusiasm for this arab spring idiocy are losing their steam, fatigue will eventually and is setting in. It is only human to wish to move on. The spirit is strong but the flesh is weak.
I therefore continue to believe that the west will call it even, since they can see that Syria has become to hard a nut to crack for now.
Posted by: Fernando | Jul 17 2013 8:22 utc | 62
I therefore continue to believe that the west will call it even, since they can see that Syria has become to hard a nut to crack for now.
I don't think so this battle will be confronted by PRCIRRR (People Republic China, Islamic Republic, Russian Republic) until the conclusion. Anything less then this will just postpone the inevitable. The west is the weakest now, USA needs to pull out from Afghanistan with little problems. Forget the BRICS, Iran is the middle glue.
Posted by: hans | Jul 17 2013 10:05 utc | 63
Funny how US always pick the wrong side.
Instead of "allies" such as Qatar, SA, Israel, Syrian al-qaeda rebels
, the allies should be Iran, Russia, China, Secular Assad.
If US only could break free from aipac and similar groups..
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 17 2013 10:22 utc | 64
"We’re against the extremists inside of Syria. Having said that, there is a moderate opposition that we’re trying to bolster, we’re trying to help, who can provide a path for a new and different Syria."
So perfectly and typically American. Completely idiotic. Upper middle/lower upper class "liberal" dreams of how the world "should be". Conveniently ignoring all the murder and bloodshed and privation it will take to make it that way.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 17 2013 12:58 utc | 67
@64 Anon: Oh Assad is "secular" now? Because before he was "sectarian" and supporting him was showing "sectarian hatred" for one side. Nice to get clarification on that.
Yeah, "funny" how the US always picks the wrong side. I'm sure if it wasn't for AIPAC and Israel, all the US corporations and military contractors would turn their efforts towards creating a world of happiness and with lollipops for all. Just ask the Vietnamese.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 17 2013 13:05 utc | 68
guest77
Yes? Assad is a secular muslim and lead a secular state.
Secterianism refers to fight between sects, which is the case in Syria and as we see among some commentators here.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 17 2013 13:10 utc | 69
69
I thought Dr. Assad was Alawite? Sunni Muslims, don't consider them fellow believers, but infidels.
I'm really not trying to start sh!t, Anonympus, it's too early. I'm just saying.
Posted by: Fernando | Jul 17 2013 13:25 utc | 70
Fernando
No problem, I dont want to start anyhing either :).
Yes I guess you are correct, some consider them muslims some dont.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 17 2013 13:36 utc | 71
"Secterianism refers to fight between sects, which is the case in Syria and as we see among some commentators here."
Ah see, that's where you are so completely wrong.
Syria is a fight between sectarians on the one hand - al Qaeda, the Sunni Islamist FSA - and those who are not sectarians - the Syrian government and people, composed of Sunnis, Shia, Christians, Kurds - fighting as one.
So don't try to sell the "it's one sect versus another, Sunni vs. Shia" the typical Israel/USDoD line. It's not. Not even close, though it fits their awful plans. The battle in Syria is a battle against sectarianism itself.
If you don't see that, you're either hoodwinked yourself or a sectarian/supremacist yourself. I'm guessing the latter with you.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 17 2013 13:46 utc | 72
guest77
Actually the denial by you that there is no secterian affiliation on both sides is secterian (Alawis dont for example fight alawi or shias). Besides kurds doesnt fight on the side of Assad, they are quite a neutral force battling Assad and opposition forces just check the recent fights by YPG.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 17 2013 13:51 utc | 73
The theory of Ba'athism was primarily the work of Eastern Orthodox Christian Michel Aflaq and Sunni schoolteacher Salah al-Din al-Bitar, reflecting the secular political scene which in 1949 even allowed a Syrian communist party. Assad’s Ba’ath Party was founded by Alawite Zaki al-Arsuzi, along with Aflaq and Bitar. And notwithstanding the debate concerning Islam’s teachings about the status of women, they have been allowed to vote in Syria since 1949. A woman, Najah al-Attar, is technically third in the line of Syrian presidential succession today. Naturally, ethnic minorities with superior education and acquired wealth from trade will produce bourgeois progressive constitutional ideas which are superior to the more or less feudal ideas of the majority. Nevertheless, as minorities they will be perpetually vulnerable to uprisings of majority tyranny led by religious agitators. This can make them useful to the colonial powers, since perpetually weak rulers are vulnerable and malleable. But in origin such regimes are more progressive than their opponents.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 17 2013 14:06 utc | 74
@73 anon
There is only one force in Syria fighting for their sect and its supremacy, and those are the right wing Sunni fanatics of the "rebels". There is no other force in the country carrying out executions based solely on religion. The Kurds fight against al Qaeda and the FSA. But they don't fight against Assad. That's no definition of "neutral" I've ever heard.
The SAA retains loyal Sunni soldiers and officers, but the al Qaeda forces will allow Shia in their ranks. The FSA appeals to one distinct sect in the country as well. If they have their way, likely neither will not allow Shia a voice in the country - perhaps not even their lives.
You can paint this as another example of the "bitter Sunni/Shia conflict" invented by the US, Israel, and the Sunni supremacists in the Gulf, but certainly everyone here knows that it's a sick fabrication akin to race-baiting in the early 1900s US.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 17 2013 14:10 utc | 75
"Alawis dont for example fight alawi or shias"
Of course they don't, but it's not for the reasons of simple "ethnic loyalty". Note that Alawis will not fight every Sunni they see, but the Sunni supremacists will fight every Alwai they can find.
You can't see that difference because it doesn't fit that "Sunni/Shia conflict" narrative you're bound to.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 17 2013 14:14 utc | 76
The SAA retains loyal Sunni soldiers and officers, but the al Qaeda forces will allow Shia in their ranks. The FSA appeals to one distinct sect in the country as well. If they have their way, likely neither will not allow Shia a voice in the country - perhaps not even their lives. Posted by: guest77 | Jul 17, 2013 10:10:22 AM | 75Sadly, there is a 'not' missing from that!
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 17 2013 14:16 utc | 77
@77 Oops. "but the al Qaeda forces will *NOT* allow Shia in their ranks"
Thanks Rowan.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 17 2013 14:24 utc | 78
guest77
Kurds do indeed fight Assad, there is even kurds in Al Nusra Front, in general they are not for assad, nor not for the "opposition", rather they are putting their own sect at the primary focus. Besides secterianism are not only about religion as you seems to imply.
FSA is also not a homogenous group, its a mixture of various sects, political groups that have united under that umbrella.
Take for example Assad's statement that political islam is dead and wont be accepted. What he really say is that sunni political islam is dead and wont be accepted, Assad have no problem with political islam in Iran nor by Hezbollah.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 17 2013 15:11 utc | 79
Kurds are not a 'sect'. They are a (non-Arab) ethnicity. For those who think that the word 'nation' has any meaning, they probably should qualify as one. But of course they are currently distributed between Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey, as everybody knows. The relationship between Syrian and Iraqi Kurds is the key thing at this point, because with US (or at least US oil company) encouragement, the Iraqi Kurds are quite near to secession, and the Barzani 'government of Iraqi Kurdistan' has been trying to assert some sort of military control over the Syrian Kurdish anti-Assad militias, largely without success.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 17 2013 15:55 utc | 80
"rather they are putting their own sect at the primary focus"
You seem to miss the difference between a group acting out of self interest - and still able to work with other groups (not example of sectarianism) - and a group actively pursuing sectarian supremacy.
You're right that saying "the Kurds" doesn't make much sense. But in the sense that we can use a term like "the Kurds", meaning the mainstream leadership of those people who identify as "Kurds", you can't say that they actively pursue "Kurdish Supremacy" in the way that the Sunni fanatics are. They are not killing people for NOT being Kurds, but al Qaeda ARE killing people because they are not Sunni fundamentalists.
I think the contradiction you point to in Assad's portrayal of "political Islam" point exactly to the opposite point you make. Obviously, because he works with Hezbollah and Iran, he isn't against "political Islam" per se so much as he'd like to see an end to Sunni Supremacists. The problem is with the ever increasing overlap between "political Islam" and Sunni Supremacy - proven by Morsi's attempts to send jihadists into Syria to kill Shia.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 17 2013 15:59 utc | 81
b wrote:
The administration has no real plans for Syria. It has no strategy and no idea who it wants to come out winning the war. But as long as the country gets destroyed it seems to be fine with the war proceeding endlessly.
That is about it. Because lacking any coherent strategy, might as well give it up to mayhem and destruction. (Iraq, Afgh. ...)
I can’t figure out Syria at all, so >, Egypt:
The US supports both sides, these being the ‘opponents’ of whatever stripe, and the Army, who are those who actually control the country. At the same time.
The US prefers the Army, for control, or the MB, which they quite like, get all those peasants just accepting the IMF strictures and USDA handouts dearly paid for; then they admire or have to in public cheer the neo-liberal secularists, that is all peachy cool, democratic and what not, modernity, economic development, all looking hyper.
So no consensus and no real policy an emerge, though one stipulation stands fast, the winners must support Isr. or at the very least agree to a non-aggression pact.
The confusion comes about because the Corp-State is run by Corporate interests and lobbies, and these are contradictory, go all over the board. There is no long term strategy, no goal. It is all about squeezing out vague influence (for who knows what) and profits here or there, short term.
The military-security lobby prefers control, arms, killing, massacres, prisons, plus re-construction, with a puppet Gvmt or a Military one, matching theirs, and funded by the tax payer (heh.)
The Elites wants to get rid of useless eaters, surplus population, potential dissidents, trouble makers, and want to keep a small pool, enough, to furnish the servant class and industries essential to them. (Food, meds, docs, yachts.)
The energy and agr. industries need a stable landscape without strife to extract, / exploit and then sell their stuff.
Big Pharma as well: it needs ppl to work and earn so they can pay for pills.
The MSM want to open up the air-internet space and hype thier products - for that ppl must be well above subsistence level.
The finance industry is not interested in ppl who will not borrow or don’t have Gvmts. that can then bail them out. Etc.
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 17 2013 17:28 utc | 82
b wrote: The administration has no real plans for Syria. It has no strategy and no idea who it wants to come out winning the war.
The government hasn't "won a war" in most citizens' lifetimes. (The so-called Gulf War was mostly a turkey-shoot.) It doesn't bother the government, whoever is running things at the time, because "war is a racket" and a continuous war continues to pay off.
I/P, Iran and Korea are the best examples, and have been for about fifty years. The first two have resulted in giant arms sales to the despotic Gulf States and promoted campaign financing domestically via The Lobby. Korea is the gift that keeps on giving, most recently being given as the reason to "pivot" the US military to that area (Pinetta).
Afghanistan is young yet, going on twelve years, but it'll last forever also. The hopes being placed in the mostly illiterate Afghan soldiers who are expected to replace the US (mostly) occupation force is a joke. The generals are lying when they say otherwise. (no surprise there)
So Syria will go on until (1) the people either leave or die, and Syria will be a failed state, or (2) Assad prevails. We just don't know, which is b's point.
82
Stunning assertions Noirette, it's all part of the neo-liberal package privatize and cost cutting. All to get down to the lowest cost for "them" but at the highest price. Kill their industry and agricultural potential. Because it's ok, we can sell all that to them anyway.
It's ok if we destroy their infrastructure because we will (promise to, at least) rebuild it.
So what is the problem carajo!??!
I hate these people, they reduce the independant nation state, to a mere dumping ground for all of their garbage.
Ok, the Kurds, I have mixed feelings about this group. Supposedly these are the descendents of the ancient Medes. An Iranian non arab people. Spread out through Turkia, Syria, Iraq e Iran. I remember reading (I was not there) that during ottoman times they still did not have a kingdom or land of their own.
They were I think called the bashi bazouks, I believe it is the equivalent of "ranger"(Anonymous, you may correct me if I'm wrong baby).
However they lived alongside the Armenian and Assyrian people's. These other nations also did not have an official land of their own.
Yet when the waning days of WW1 came along, they happily participated in the massacres and genocides against said Armenians and Assyrians.
It then happened to them when the Arabs, tried to Arabize them, through Baathism and then the whippings they received at the hands of Saddam When they were cooperating with Israel against him.
The Shah also had carried out punitive attacks against them.
We all know about the ongoing struggle between Kurd and Turk.
The Kurds have blood on their hands and are hypocritical in their stance for freedom for their nation while having denied it to others. They should never get their own country at least until they apologize to these people. The Assyrian and Armenians.
Posted by: Fernando | Jul 17 2013 18:16 utc | 84
The Kurds should never get their own country until they apologize to the Assyrians and Armenians? Fernando, I hope you don't envisage some sort of World Body imposing this condition on the Kurds as a condition for being graciously permitted to create a state of their own. That would be an exercise in paternalism to dwarf all previous exercises in paternalism.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 17 2013 18:38 utc | 85
Noirette @ 82 -- Verizon had announced it would provide fiber optic wire to its customers in 2006, but, in 2010, it announced it was not going to install more fiber optic. Some analysts viewed this as Verizon deciding it wasn't worth the cost for the lower monthly recurring revenues in lower economic quintile areas. Verizon's first fiber optics, which can provide actually fast high speed broadband, were almost all installed in higher economic quintile areas. The rest of us were told over and over that it would take time, but there would be fiber; then, we told nahgahhappen.
It's part of the elites decision to market to the higher econ quintiles and screw the lowers, which given the lack of increase in real earning, increasingly means screw the middle class on down. Since fewer people can afford multiple packages and higher tiers, it's now worth even marketing to them.
Posted by: jawbone | Jul 18 2013 7:56 utc | 86
#66 anoyipiss
No it was a combination of all 3 you fuckwit
mossad where protecting the jews in sarajevo
greeks were breaking plates
and the ukrainians were guarding the vodka from russia
Posted by: jub | Jul 18 2013 13:52 utc | 87
jub
Haha you are so predictable. Now go read aipac's new memo.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 18 2013 14:23 utc | 88
@Anon The only one pushing Israeli horseshit around here - from the "sectarian" Syrian War to encouraging violence in Egypt to talking about how strong and omnipotent Israel is - is you.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 18 2013 14:39 utc | 89
guest77
I havent said they are secterian, contrary, I showed how there are kurds in every front in this war.
Also accepting shia but nut sunni political islam is a secterian argument.
If you want to call Israel "omnipotent" go ahead, thats not my words.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 18 2013 14:47 utc | 90
Still trapped in your little "Shia vs. Sunni" world. The difference is not between "sects" but between a non-violent political Islam and the extremist, supremacist violence you spend your time promoting. I'm not at all surprised you still can't see the difference, you don't want to.
You don't need to use those words. It's clear from every fawning statement you make about their abilities.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 18 2013 16:27 utc | 91
guest77
Thats not right either, if you check the past decades the Muslim Brotherhood have pursued a non-violent way. So when you say that sunni political islam is violent, its not only false its again a secterian argument since you use it against shia political islam.
Exactly, I dont use those words, you did. What I have said was that Israel have good military-intelligence - this is a fact, facts not dogmatic ideology (like anti-israel ideology by yourself) should rule this dicussion. I could for example say that US too have great military-intelligence but for that matter, not agree with them on their wars for example.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 18 2013 16:46 utc | 92
"the past decades the Muslim Brotherhood have pursued a non-violent way"
In the past, when they were out of power, they pursued a non-violent struggle. When they were in power and had the power to stop such extremism, they chose instead to increase it by proposing to send fighters to Syria and keeping silent on increasing sectarian violence within Egypt. You yourself press the line that now violence is inevitable because they have been put out of power. This is your "non violent way".
The difference (from those opposed to your point of view) is not in the sects themselves but in whether they have a supremacist view or not. And your support of that outlook is the indication that you support more than just "facts" relating to "Israel's good intelligence" but your complete accommodation to the entire world view which they and the west are pushing - that of a divided Muslim world at war with itself.
Don't act like anyone is saying "Sunnis are naturally supremacists" or is drawing lines between sects on this side because I'm certainly not, nor are any prominent Shia (shown by the Sunni/Shia alliance within the Syrian government). The difference that the Sunni/Shia/Kurd//Christian Assad Government and Hezbollah have been pointing out is between two types of political Islam: one based on following Islamic tenets to unite people and create a just society (as they see it), and the other based on a violent division of sects (an outlook which will only benefit the imperialists). Your side is quickly dying, like all ideologies based on supremacism do.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 19 2013 0:39 utc | 93
The Brotherhood and the Baath old guard go down
The Syrian National Coalition's Saudi MakeoverOver the past few days, the Baath Party and the opposition Syrian National Coalition have both elected new leaders, although the timing appears to be a coincidence. If anything, the scope of the reshuffle indicates that both parties, for their own reasons, have come to acknowledge that their respective models were no longer working, and required a fundamental adjustment in their policies and top brass.
Interestingly, this process has produced two main losers: namely, the Muslim Brotherhood-led wing in the National Coalition and the “old guard” of the Baath. These two groups have been the historical poles of the conflict in Syria over the past decade; therefore, the fact that they have been cast aside almost simultaneously has left many wondering whether this comes in advance preparation for a dialogue between the new Baath gutted of its old guard, and the National Coalition ridded of the Brotherhood.
The Syrian source reveals that for months now, the chief of Saudi intelligence, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, has been seeking to instigate a coup in the National Coalition, with a view to scaling back the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence and imposing Ahmad al-Jarba as the coalition’s new leader. To achieve this, Riyadh relied on opposition veteran Michel Kilo, who was asked to incorporate dozens of his supporters and independents into the opposition outfit, in order to gain enough votes to upend the Brotherhood’s control over the Coalition.
Speaking as somebody who worked for many years in the Gulf, and I mean this as a compliment, trying to organize Arab countries is like herding cats.
Posted by: dh | Jul 19 2013 1:12 utc | 95
@dh #95
trying to organize Arab countries is like herding cats
Gertrude Bell, the 'founder of modern Iraq,' 1920:
“In the light of the events of the last two months there's no getting out of the conclusion that we have made an immense failure here. The system must have been far more at fault than anything that I or anyone else suspected. It will have to be fundamentally changed and what that may mean exactly I don't know. I suppose we have underestimated the fact that this country is really an inchoate mass of tribes which can't as yet be reduced to any system."
@96 People like Lawrence and Thesiger and Gertrude Bell knew what they were talking about. Unfortunately their masters back in London just kept trying.
Posted by: dh | Jul 19 2013 1:21 utc | 97
#94
The reported makeover of the Syrian National Coalition away from the Brotherhood is interesting in several ways:
--Prince Bandar Bush may indeed still be alive and kicking
--Abdullah bin Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman bin Faisal bin Turki bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Saud, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, is in a struggle with Qatar which explains changes there.
--The Syrian Supreme Military Council, which has weak (or no) ties to fighting units, is (as far as we know) still aligned with the Brotherhood. The US says it is channeling assistance through General Idris and his military council.
--In an ancillary matter, the recent dustup in Doha over the Taliban office may signal a move on Afghanistan negotiations from Doha to Riyadh. Actually, the Afghanistan "Peace Process Roadmap to 2015" issued by the Karzai-formed Afghan High Peace Council calls for involvement by Saudi Arabia, not Qatar. Why did the Taliban go for Qatar and not SA, given Pakistan's closeness to SA?
The MBs will do what their paymasters tell them. Looking for an 'MB philosophy' is chasing moonbeams. read Sayyid Qutb if you must - I have the whole 18-volume "Shadow of the Qur'an" and there's nothing of importance in it that isn't in the slim, one-volume "Milestones". Be aware that Sayyid Qutb's "Social Justice in Islam" is never reprinted by islamic publishers, only by western academic ones, even though it contains nothing one could really call 'militant' in the direction of 'social justice' (a eupehmistic and ambiguous phrase, where marxists talk much more unambiguously of 'class justice'). The MB strategy from Qutb's time to this has been to try to sound socially progressive while actually responding first and foremost to the needs of local large landowners in each country. But ultimately the paymasters call the tune, anyway.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 19 2013 7:12 utc | 99
If this is true, then it means the SAA has broken the seige on Aleppo:
Aleppo Governor: Over 100 trucks loaded with supplies arrived in Aleppo within past 24 hours
H Sabbagh, SANA, Jul 17 2013ALEPPO – Aleppo Governor Mohammad Walid Aqqad affirmed that over 100 trucks loaded with various essential supplies like flour, fuel and food arrived in Aleppo city within the past 24 hours. In a statement to SANA on Wednesday, Aqqad said that efforts are still underway to improve living conditions in the city, and that several types of essential goods will become available again for citizens within the next few days, stressing that providing the needs of Aleppo's people is a priority for the government. On a relevant note, the distribution of gas cylinders at regular price recommenced in Aleppo city on Wednesday, with the distribution continuing within the next few days to cover all residential areas. Gasoline will also become available in gas stations in Aleppo within the next few days after several months of gasoline being unavailable due to current circumstances in the province.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 19 2013 7:28 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
Try stating to a Obama supperter that Obama arms terrorists...these people are in DEEP denial.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 15 2013 18:16 utc | 1