I decided itâs probably best to keep my mouth shut for the most part in this topic, but there are a couple of things I can comment on from your post.
Originally posted by Dubai_Phil
Bashar is going to go. The War will end. The Nation may be re-united into some form of Federal system with Regional Enclaves. Bashar may be kept on to help the transition. The INDICATION of an IMPLICATION is that Bashar accepts this but is planning a proper exit not just to safeguard him and his supporters but to actually leave a country WORTH handing over unlike LibyaâŚ
Privately â that has been his position for a while â although publicly, that is not a position he can take.
The main issue here, is the reasons. The reasons for everything that has been âcreatedâ from the âoutsideâ, which is currently occurring in his Sovereign Territory. As I hinted at previously, it is all about what is known in political/military circles as âThe Non-Integrating Gapâ.
Syria is in the âGapâ. And it has no intention or desire of being removed from it. Bashar will not accept a settlement that ends with his beloved country becoming a part of the so-called âFunctioning Coreâ. In other words â that group of Nation-States which bends over and agrees to take the cock of American-Israeli Foreign Policy up its unprotected ass.
Try to look at everything that is occurring, in the light of this knowledge, and it all begins to make more sense.
Something to bear in mind: Whilst Russia is on scene, supposedly playing the âbad guyâ according to Western Media â Russia IS a part of the Functioning Core. Read her actions in that light.
Bashar has said for a long time, that he will be prepared to go, but under his terms, not those dictated by the west/Israeli influence â whoâs priority intention in that aspect of the region, is the break-up of the so called âresistance blockâ of Iran, Syria, HizbâAllah, Hamas.
Again â try to view all that occurs in the region in that light â and everything makes much more sense. You could say that a certain âpatternâ begins to emerge.
Originally posted by Dubai_Phil
Now, Iâm not going to debate or argue this but these rumours would indicate that there is activity beyond what we are hearing from the Media around the talks in Munich
but I have met people today that have been in these discussions all week and some of them are employed by VERY BIG Corporations, and ALL have been carried out with full Corporate Legal mandates so are not in any way Sanction busting.
This much I can also confirm, in that such talks have been, and are continuing to take place. I have personal knowledge of some of these, albeit not being involved with them myself in anyway. You could say that I see some aspects of the paperwork, where the talks affect humanitarian issues in the region.
Originally posted by Dubai_Phil
The Gossip may be utter gobsh1te, but then that would mean some pretty high up Multi National Director types were talking out there ass in a non-private location
Note I wonât give any opinion.
Canât speak outside of the small amounts Iâve already commented on Phil â but there is definitely some truth in what you say.
Interesting contributions, gentlemen - which illustrates just how quickly things can change, and how often the perceived wisdom can be completely incorrect.
Iâve been doing some reading on the Iraq/Iran conflict. Difficult to believe now, but back in the day, it was Saddam that presented himself as the anti-Israel strongman, to the extent where Iran and Israel actually cooperated. The enemy of my enemy and all that.
Referring to what Jack Schitt refers to as the functioning core, theyâve wanted the same things from the region since petroleum was thought to exist there. Things really heated up when suspicions of oil turned into giant deposits. The 1953 coup in Iran was justified by people at the time as preventing the Soviets from getting their hands on the same resources.
Whatever - the game being played is the same, Syria has been part of that game since the first bit of unrest in Aleppo. Iâve always felt that the Westâs long-term aim is peace through further Balkanisation of the region. There is already talk of Syria becoming separate countries, possibly Iraq too.
Personally, I think the exact opposite is needed for stability in that region. Whether itâs a treaty alliance like NATO or some loose political union, blocs have managed to sustain peace for decades. The last time that region saw relative calm was during the days of the Ottoman Empire. Pretty much all the problems of that region stem from large world powers deciding it was going to be theirs when it crumbled.
Whatever - the game being played is the same, Syria has been part of that game since the first bit of unrest in Aleppo. Iâve always felt that the Westâs long-term aim is peace through further Balkanisation of the region. There is already talk of Syria becoming separate countries, possibly Iraq too.
Haha. Thanks, I needed a laugh today mate!
The Westâs aim â is control and the projection of power; both hard and soft.
It doesnât give a flying fuck about âpeaceâ, and in fact, its actions over the course of history seem to indicate that it goes out of its way to actively avoid such a potential fiscal âcalamityâ.
You are however accurate in your assessment of the intention to effectively âBalkaniseâ the region.
It is essentially about their desired break-up of the historic âResistence Blockâ I mentioned previously. Breaking the supply line to Lebanonâs Hizbâallah and Gazaâs Hamas is, and long has been the priority, policy-wise. What weâve seen in âthe theatreâ of recent times, is simply that policy being played out.
Iran is presently considered a problem best put off until later, so â âkeep your enemies closeâ etc is current policy.
So â Hosni Mubarak is ousted in favour of Mohammed Morsi, whoâs Muslim Brotherhood ensure close ties with Hamas, offering them a much easier time of it, to the extent they feel comfortable weaning themselves of their reliance on Iranian support, and turn against Bashar in Syria (their previous key aspect of the Resistance supply line).
Once thatâs accomplished, and Iran are pissed with Hamas â we have a very convienient toppling of Morsi for a hardline military coup in Egypt, who are completely anti-Hamas, and co-operation is replaced by a complete crack-down and shut down of the Rafah crossing and destruction of the supply tunnels into Gaza. Thatâs Hamasâ threat significantly neutered.
Next on the agenda is the destruction of Syria, breaking the supply-line to Hizbâallah in Lebanon. Thanks very much lads, says israel (genocidal apartheid terror-states donât get legitimised with capitals).
The illegitimate terror-state got its fingers significantly bitten the last time it tried going in hot in Southern Lebanon, but once Hizbâallah is considered sufficiently weakened enough, they may well feel the time is right for another go at grabbing the Litani, and expanding their never actually declared borders.
By then, what remains of Syria will be significantly weakened also, and clearly with their own internal troubles to manage, Hizbâallah will no longer have that great source of support they once enjoyed. Which leaves Iran. By which time the Western alliance might not feel they need that particular âenemyâ quite so close anymore. Expect further ânuclear fuelledâ issues to arise which suddenly now need to be dealt with immediately, and with a show of extravagant force. #ShockAndAwe time.
When all the apparently unrelated âdotsâ on the map of operational flashpoints around the region have been drawn â the much clearer overarching picture will begin to emerge, as âsomeoneâ comes along to join them all together.
Originally posted by pap
The last time that region saw relative calm was during the days of the Ottoman Empire. Pretty much all the problems of that region stem from large world powers deciding it was going to be theirs when it crumbled.
Your analysis is pretty well spot on Pap. The utter carnage that has been ongoing across the Middle East for so very long now â all stems from a bunch of greedy western cunts who thought theyâd just nip in and "re-drawâ the map in their own interests â with a blatant disregard for the fact that the many relatively peacefully side-by-side, co-existing clans and tribes of the region at that point, had little to no concept of Nation-States.
So we arbitrarily re-drew the lines, created Nations to franchise out to puppet regimes of choice, by clumping together vastly disparate groups of people with opposing faiths and beliefs, then sat back and waited for the melting pot to start simmering.
We are responsible for all of this. And infuriatingly so, quite by design.
âProud to be Britishâ? Nah â fucking ashamed of it more like.
Can I ask what Nations/tribes have been living peacefully side by side, there has been Western interference of course but that will always be the case with an asset like oil but please tell me these places of peace and order?
So, letâs assume for a moment that the deal is already done. Daeesh are running for Raqaa - how else can Sky News get Ms Crawford so close to the front line?
So what are the actual implications and what donât they want us to know?
Well IS are running - some reports say to Raqaa so why isnât Putin staying on to blow that City off the map? More likely they are running to Africa and EU (OR more likely most of them ran BEFORE the fences went up)
So
could be they are already all over EU and letting that be known would cause panic
They ran back to Iraq where they came from - but why are we hearing NO news from there? Has the country stabilised magically?
A deal is done that solves the Syrian Problem but is NOT what the Politicos demanded. Ah so thatâs why they would keep quiet as long as possible.
Something is cooking, cannot simply be that Putin canât afford the fuel for the planes or salaries for the troops could it? If it was that what does THAT do to the planetâŚ
Think you could be spot on with the âdeal is doneâ theory, Phil.
Weâve got the Geneva talks happening this week. Diplomatically, the Syrians will be taken less seriously if theyâve got a foreign power backing them up with force of arms. People may suspect the Russian hand in things if those forces werenât pulling out of the country.
âAn attempt by Russia and Iran to prop up Assad and try to pacify the population is just going to get them stuck in a quagmire and it wonât work.â So said U.S. President Barack Obama when Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his military campaign in Syria to support the countryâs authoritarian ruler.
Thereâs just one problem, though: A day after Putin announced a Russian withdrawal from Syria, itâs clear that his gamble has turned into a major win for Moscow. Hereâs what Russia achieved â and why it was so successful.
âAn attempt by Russia and Iran to prop up Assad and try to pacify the population is just going to get them stuck in a quagmire and it wonât work.â So said U.S. President Barack Obama when Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his military campaign in Syria to support the countryâs authoritarian ruler.
Thereâs just one problem, though: A day after Putin announced a Russian withdrawal from Syria, itâs clear that his gamble has turned into a major win for Moscow. Hereâs what Russia achieved â and why it was so successful.
But GB, it wasnât a fuck up. It has been in the realms of the bleedin obvious ever since Dubyaâs invasion of Iraq that the âWestâ simply didnât âget itâ
The only fuck up is the ignorance of Western Media & Politicians who are so moronic that everything must be good or bad, black or white. THEY have fucked up the entire ME & North Africa and as IS get pushed out of Syria will have to pick up the pieces in Iraq and across the EU.
FFS anyone with a brain said Syria needed a solution that at least keeps Bashar during a regime change or worse. Not because he is a nice guy but because the Western Version of fuck off or die leaves a vacuum that Nations without a Democratic backbone simply cannot put back together alone.
Putin has essentially wrecked Western intentions in Syria since the moment Russia got involved in 2013. Postponing the inevitable was possibly Ed Milibandâs finest achievement as Labour leader, but the action that really simmered things down was the remarkable deal brokered by the Russians that saw Assad give up his entire chemical weapons stock to prevent an all out assault by the West. We know why he brokered that deal, but the fact remains that those weapons are off the board. Genius stroke that both ended the present crisis and ensured that the âred lineâ would not be crossed again.
The military intervention last year has brought us to Geneva within five months. The article I posted enumerated the success of the operation.
Putin is a practioner of judo, and heâs basically doing that to the West, using its own movement against it. In 2013, he pulls one devastating move, and theyâre down. In 2015, the Russian government legally assists the recognised Syrian government. There is now a ceasefire in place and diplomatic talks going on in Geneva.
No doubt Russian intervention has cost civilian lives. Intervention always does, but we have no room to lecture people when our drone strikes are doing 95% collateral damage. If some kind of peace in Geneva is hammered out, Putinâs victory in Syria will be complete.
Hence we should never ever again put our paws in that shite that is the middle east again, buy the oil and thatâs it no more, they either sell to us or not.
Our supposed humanitarian action turns the place into a humanitarian crisis. The region needs to sort it out itself by itself.
I agree Barry. We should have always have had a simple customer supplier relationship built on mutual respect. I donât even agree that people made the best decisions available to them at the time. Even back in 1919, people knew the problems that fragmentation of the area would bring. Those concerns were ignored.
The problem is that most of the people responsible for those decisions were imperialists, with a long history of exploiting the economies of others.
Palmyra has been recaptured from ISIS by the Syrian regime. Robert Fisk asks why Cameron isnât making a big thing of it, like we all did when it was lost.
The biggest military defeat that isis has suffered in more than two years. The recapture of Palmyra, the Roman city of the Empress Zenobia. And we are silent. Yes, folks, the bad guys won, didnât they? Otherwise, we would all be celebrating, wouldnât we?
Less than a week after the lost souls of the âIslamic Caliphateâ destroyed the lives of more than 30 innocent human beings in Brussels, we should - should we not? - have been clapping our hands at the most crushing military reverse in the history of Isis. But no. As the black masters of execution fled Palmyra this weekend, Messers Obama and Cameron were as silent as the grave to which Isis have dispatched so many of their victims. He who lowered our national flag in honour of the head-chopping king of Arabia (Iâm talking about Dave, of course) said not a word.
Hope you donât mind Phil â just bringing your post from the Brussels thread over here.
As far as running an informative thread on the situation in Syria goes â this is key information that should be reflected in this topic.
For anyone genuinely interested, read my âwork-sourcedâ information (and subsequent analysis) I offered previously in the thread in light of Philâs post, and you can see a clearer picture of how it all fits together in the grand scheme of things.
Originally posted by @Dubai_Phil
The Middle East situation explained in one simple leaked email
A newly-released Hilary Clinton email confirmed thatthe Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the âbest way to help Israel.â
In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the âright thingâ to personally threaten Bashar Assadâs family with death.
In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the âbest way to help Israelâ is to âuse forceâ in Syria to overthrow the government.
Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000, this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact sent on December 31, 2012.
The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian governmentâand specifically to do this because it is in Israelâs interests.
âThe best way to help Israel deal with Iranâs growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad,â Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying.
She specifically links Iranâs mythical atom bomb program to Syria because, she says, Iranâs âatom bombâ program threatens Israelâs âmonopolyâ on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, Clinton asserts, this would allow Syria (and other âadversaries of Israelâ such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt) to âgo nuclear as well,â all of which would threaten Israelâs interests.
Therefore, Clinton, says, Syria has to be destroyed.
Iranâs nuclear program and Syriaâs civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. What Israeli military leaders really worry about â but cannot talk about â is losing their nuclear monopoly.
An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.
If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.
It is, Clinton continues, the âstrategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syriaâ that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israelâs security.
This would not come about through a âdirect attack,â Clinton admits, because âin the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israelâ this has never occurred, but through its alleged âproxies.â
The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israelâs leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.
Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israelâs security, it would also ease Israelâs understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.
Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.
Clinton goes on to asset that directly threatening Bashar Assad âand his familyâ with violence is the âright thingâ to do:
In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.
With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assadâs mind.
The email provesâas if any more proof was neededâthat the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to âprotectâ Israel.
It is also a sobering thought to consider that the ârefugeeâ crisis which currently threatens to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.
In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to Iraqâall thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the ârebelsâ and stoking the fires of war in Syria.
The real and disturbing possibility that a psychopath like Clintonâwhose policy has inflicted death and misery upon millions of peopleâcould become the next president of America is the most deeply shocking thought of all.
Clintonâs public assertion that, if elected president, she would âtake the relationship with Israel to the next level,â would definitively mark her, and Israel, as the enemy of not just some Arab states in the Middle East, but of all peace-loving people on earth.
If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.
It is, Clinton continues, the âstrategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syriaâ that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israelâs security.
This would not come about through a âdirect attack,â Clinton admits, because âin the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israelâ this has never occurred, but through its alleged âproxies.â
The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israelâs leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.
Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israelâs security, it would also ease Israelâs understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.
Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.
Clinton goes on to asset that directly threatening Bashar Assad âand his familyâ with violence is the âright thingâ to do:
In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.
With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assadâs mind.
The email provesâas if any more proof was neededâthat the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to âprotectâ Israel.
Israel has long been the elephant in the region, and there really isnât enough discussion about how its policies shape the foreign policies of others, often to the detriment of those countries following suit. Iâm really not surprised by Philâs post, but it is one of the few occasions in which the policy is transparent and laid bare.
Thing is, weâre unlikely to have a balanced discussion of the issues when you take the power of the Israeli lobby into consideration. In the past couple of years alone, weâve seen councils barred from participating in solidarity boycotts, conferences cancelled and more recently, some rather grubby articles suggesting that Jeremy Corbynâs Labour is about to become a new hotbed of anti-semitism, a tag one can attract simply by supporting the boycotts.
The behaviour of Israel has been hugely instrumental in the development of anti-Western enmity, simply because it illustrates the hypocrisy of our stated values time and time again. We believe in human rights, except where Israel is concerned. We believe in the rule of international law, except where Israel (or more recently, we) is concerned. We frown on theocracies, unless itâs Israel. We frown on the taking of others land (and I am talking purely about settlements, not anything agreed by the UN) unless itâs Israel, or once again, more recently us.
If any other state outside the Permanent Security Council got up to the stuff that Israel did, weâd be applying sanctions and insisting that ways were changed. And yet, weâve enabled a state to go rogue, with every disproportionate act it takes reflecting badly on us, highlighting our hypocrisy and no doubt fuelling the recruitment of extremists.
I think a huge amount could be sorted out if international law was simply observed.
