|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
this may be a game changer....
Syrian rebels acquire surface-to-air missiles: report
(Reuters) - Rebels fighting to depose Syrian president Bashar al Assad have for the first time acquired a small supply of surface-to-air missiles, according to a news report that a Western official did not dispute.
NBC News reported Tuesday night that the rebel Free Syrian Army had obtained nearly two dozen of the weapons, which were delivered to them via neighboring Turkey, whose moderate Islamist government has been demanding Assad's departure with increasing vehemence.
Indications are that the U.S. government, which has said it opposes arming the rebels, is not responsible for the delivery of the missiles.
But some U.S. government sources have been saying for weeks that Arab governments seeking to oust Assad, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have been pressing for such missiles, also known as MANPADs, for man-portable air-defense systems, to be supplied to the rebels.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/31/us-usa-syria-missiles-idUSBRE86U1T920120731
|
Syrian combat aircraft and artillery are targeting Aleppo as the army battles for control of the country's biggest city, where rebel fighters say troops loyal to President Bashar al-Assad have been forced to retreat.
Large clouds of black smoke rose into the sky on Tuesday after attack helicopters turned their machine guns on the eastern districts for the first time in the latest fighting and a MiG fighter jet strafed the same area.
After nightfall, video filmed by Reuters news agency showed flashes and loud explosions somewhere in the city area.
At least 10 volleys of shells lit up the night sky and drowned out the sound of the Islamic call to prayer.
Earlier, the outgunned rebels laid hands on tanks and other weapons during an attack on a vital government checkpoint north of Aleppo city, amateur video obtained by Reuters showed.
Rebels are seen in the video with tanks, armoured personnel carriers and other weapons at Anadan, about 20km north of Aleppo.
Source
|
Syrian rebels have heavy weapons of their own, including tanks, UN spokeswoman confirms
|
On August 01 2012 11:00 Sofix wrote:
This insurrection is getting worse each day. Imagine, if your country gets attacked by armed people, doing bombings against the government, how would you call that? Terrorism, right?
If this is against a government that stayed there for many years, with same ways (bombings, armed conflicts..), how would you call that? A revolution?
Rebels apparently don't realize what's they're doing. Same for the government. They kill people of the same ethnicity than them, and they call themselves muslims/arabs... Ignorants, Syria will know the same destiny than Lybia, a poor and unsafe country; with democracy yes, but poor and unsafe.
It's a conspiracy.
There's honestly no way to respond to this post.
|
On July 20 2012 19:11 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2012 18:43 Xanthopsia wrote:Was watching this on the news today and I would love it if someone could please explain to me why Russia and China veto UN interjection in the issue. I've read that Russia is an ally with the Syrian government but don't quite understand China's reasoning to veto. Thanks  The current Syrian regime is an ally to Iran. The middle-east is split between three real powers: Iran - Shia Islam Saudi-Arabi - Sunni Islam (and its own personal Wahabi strain, but it masquerades as Sunni) Israel - Western/Jewish These three powers bump into one another, with each hating the other two. The struggle between Iran and Saudi is, in the minds of the people engaged in it, a struggle for the soul of Islam. Syria was one of Iran's few really reliable allies in the region, so of course they want to keep them there. Syria is also, I believe, the only army base that Russia has in the region. If they loose that, their influence over the entire region isn't just destroyed from a practical sense (in losing their last base) but also by showing any potential allies that Russia will leave out to hang when the going gets tough. China, on the other hand, is mostly in it for Iranian favor. Iran and China are very compatible countries. Iran has been isolated a great deal, but with acces to the Chinese market they can maintain economic growth. China on the other hand needs more reliable sources for oil, of which Iran is the most obvious. On a deeper level the two nations share a similar cultural legacy. Both have a long and rich history as empires. Both feel cheated from that position by Western influences, and both (arguably China more) are on the rise. Finally, and this is getting really nitty-gritty, the Chinese governments really hates the rise of Islam within its own borders. Saudi-Arabia is very active in spreading their Wahabism, bankrolling the construction of mosques and paying for books that "properly" explain how the Quran should be read (hint: their way). Iran, and by extension Shia Islam, is much less about being projected. China would greatly preffer an Iranian dominated middle-east, because they feel that Iran is much more respectfull of their sovereignty, something which isn't just paramount for the Chinese government, but also for the Chinese people themselves who feel very strongly about their cultural identity. So, Russia plays ball because they are in bed with Syria. China mostly supports them because they want to win favor with Iran.
I agree with most of what you're saying except for two points.
Russia's "military base" in Syria is a non-factor. It's not even classified a military base. It's a scrappy 40 year old naval facility that can't host any of Russia's current major warships. The facility itself is manned by somewhere between 4 to 12 people.
China also needs to win no favour with Iran. It's not like Iran would reduce trade or diplomatic ties with China if China were to support intervention in Syria. Iran couldn't afford to alienate China.
My view is that China and Russia's main reasons for being against a foreign intervention is that they support stability above all else.
China and Russia both have problems with secessionist Islamic peoples (let's not call them radicals for once), and don't want to see any support given to them by militant Islamic networks, such as Al-Qaeda, East Turkestan Islamic Movement, the Haqqani Network, etc. They would rather Middle Eastern nations be ruled by governments that can effectively secure the country, regardless of whether it results in human rights violations. Whether Libya is better now than it was under Qaddafi is a matter of opinion and subject to debate. But I can assure you that Libya in the eyes of China and Russia is a far less stable entity, and creates a risk to their own interests both in the region and at home.
On a side note, I'm tired of most people portraying the Syrian issue as a clear case of good and evil, with the Western nations and the Syrian rebels as knights in shining armour while Assad, Russia and China are portrayed as brutal oppressors.
Foreign intervention may or may not be a good thing for the Syrian people, but know this:
Every single country acts in its own best interests, the people of Syria be damned.
|
Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret U.S. support for Syrian rebels
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama's order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence "finding," broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120801
|
|
|
|
|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 01 2012 21:13 raviy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2012 19:11 zalz wrote:On July 20 2012 18:43 Xanthopsia wrote:Was watching this on the news today and I would love it if someone could please explain to me why Russia and China veto UN interjection in the issue. I've read that Russia is an ally with the Syrian government but don't quite understand China's reasoning to veto. Thanks The current Syrian regime is an ally to Iran. The middle-east is split between three real powers: Iran - Shia Islam Saudi-Arabi - Sunni Islam (and its own personal Wahabi strain, but it masquerades as Sunni) Israel - Western/Jewish These three powers bump into one another, with each hating the other two. The struggle between Iran and Saudi is, in the minds of the people engaged in it, a struggle for the soul of Islam. Syria was one of Iran's few really reliable allies in the region, so of course they want to keep them there. Syria is also, I believe, the only army base that Russia has in the region. If they loose that, their influence over the entire region isn't just destroyed from a practical sense (in losing their last base) but also by showing any potential allies that Russia will leave out to hang when the going gets tough. China, on the other hand, is mostly in it for Iranian favor. Iran and China are very compatible countries. Iran has been isolated a great deal, but with acces to the Chinese market they can maintain economic growth. China on the other hand needs more reliable sources for oil, of which Iran is the most obvious. On a deeper level the two nations share a similar cultural legacy. Both have a long and rich history as empires. Both feel cheated from that position by Western influences, and both (arguably China more) are on the rise. Finally, and this is getting really nitty-gritty, the Chinese governments really hates the rise of Islam within its own borders. Saudi-Arabia is very active in spreading their Wahabism, bankrolling the construction of mosques and paying for books that "properly" explain how the Quran should be read (hint: their way). Iran, and by extension Shia Islam, is much less about being projected. China would greatly preffer an Iranian dominated middle-east, because they feel that Iran is much more respectfull of their sovereignty, something which isn't just paramount for the Chinese government, but also for the Chinese people themselves who feel very strongly about their cultural identity. So, Russia plays ball because they are in bed with Syria. China mostly supports them because they want to win favor with Iran. I agree with most of what you're saying except for two points. Russia's "military base" in Syria is a non-factor. It's not even classified a military base. It's a scrappy 40 year old naval facility that can't host any of Russia's current major warships. The facility itself is manned by somewhere between 4 to 12 people. China also needs to win no favour with Iran. It's not like Iran would reduce trade or diplomatic ties with China if China were to support intervention in Syria. Iran couldn't afford to alienate China. My view is that China and Russia's main reasons for being against a foreign intervention is that they support stability above all else. China and Russia both have problems with secessionist Islamic peoples (let's not call them radicals for once), and don't want to see any support given to them by militant Islamic networks, such as Al-Qaeda, East Turkestan Islamic Movement, the Haqqani Network, etc. They would rather Middle Eastern nations be ruled by governments that can effectively secure the country, regardless of whether it results in human rights violations. Whether Libya is better now than it was under Qaddafi is a matter of opinion and subject to debate. But I can assure you that Libya in the eyes of China and Russia is a far less stable entity, and creates a risk to their own interests both in the region and at home. On a side note, I'm tired of most people portraying the Syrian issue as a clear case of good and evil, with the Western nations and the Syrian rebels as knights in shining armour while Assad, Russia and China are portrayed as brutal oppressors. Foreign intervention may or may not be a good thing for the Syrian people, but know this:
Every single country acts in its own best interests, the people of Syria be damned.
i agree with you here 100%
but some nation act like they do it for the poor syrian people
|
US blames Russia, China in Annan resignation
(AP) – 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House says Kofi Annan's resignation as United Nations envoy to Syria highlights the failure of Russia and China to support action against Syrian President Bashar Assad.
White House press secretary Jay Carney says the U.S. is grateful for Annan's willingness to lead efforts to seek a resolution to the ongoing violence in Syria. But he says the Syrian government was never willing to embrace Annan's plan, which included a cease-fire and allowing international monitors to operate in the county.
Annan announced his resignation Thursday.
Carney says the U.S. will continue working with international partners to halt the violence. But he says the U.S. continues to oppose sending weapons to rebel forces in Syria.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvGi8rPV63zJb0tYrPnVdWIv-HtA?docId=e25496e18a1f4d60a893a1746f58346e
|
If we're assessing the reasons for Kofi Annan's resignation, we should really read Annan's own editorial on his resignation, rather than news articles commenting on reactions by the various governments or political pundits.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b00b6ed4-dbc9-11e1-8d78-00144feab49a.html#axzz22V733ypx
Annan clearly places the blame on all countries involved, and specifically cites Russia, China and Iran, as well as the US, UK, France, Turkey Saudi Arabia and Qatar. He also specifically states that courage and leadership is required of Putin and Obama, thereby suggesting this has not been thus far demonstrated.
He also states that the government honoured the ceasefire of April 12. We should note that the Syrian Opposition explicitly rejected all transition plans proposed by Annan, and their rejection was supported by the US in their constant demands for Assad's immediate resignation.
Again, regardless of the merits of Annan's plans, the blaming of only Russia, China, or Iran is simply disingenuous and misleading.
|
"Moscow sending 3 large landing ships with marines aboard to a Russian naval facility in the Syrian port of Tartus, reports say"
|
Geo-politically I think the Arab Spring, now Syria's turn, has allowed some European countries and Middle East countries to flex not only their diplomatic muscles but Military as well. Look at Libya and how France and Italy pretty much were the loudest and sent the most, as what they could, and how Britain reacted. Italy and France sent a carrier each and for some reason, which was not needed, Britain sent two...
Now look at all the events and see how Qatar, Turkey and to a lesser extent UAE is reacting, sending weapons, gear, money and medical aid. Even sending in agents to train insurgents. Saudi Arabia which hates Assad has to be thinking of a power play and not wanting to lose any footing.
|
UN General Assembly adopts resolution that urges political transition in Syria and condemns Security Council for not acting
Russian UN envoy condemns General Assembly resolution on Syria, says it's 'harmful' and masks 'blatant support' for rebels
|
On August 01 2012 11:38 ImFromPortugal wrote:this may be a game changer.... Syrian rebels acquire surface-to-air missiles: report
(Reuters) - Rebels fighting to depose Syrian president Bashar al Assad have for the first time acquired a small supply of surface-to-air missiles, according to a news report that a Western official did not dispute.NBC News reported Tuesday night that the rebel Free Syrian Army had obtained nearly two dozen of the weapons, which were delivered to them via neighboring Turkey, whose moderate Islamist government has been demanding Assad's departure with increasing vehemence. Indications are that the U.S. government, which has said it opposes arming the rebels, is not responsible for the delivery of the missiles. But some U.S. government sources have been saying for weeks that Arab governments seeking to oust Assad, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have been pressing for such missiles, also known as MANPADs, for man-portable air-defense systems, to be supplied to the rebels. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/31/us-usa-syria-missiles-idUSBRE86U1T920120731
The Gulf Arabs have two primary interests in supporting the rebels.
1) Wiping out secular governments in the Middle East. The Syrians have always cracked down on religious fanatics, in particular. If the trend in Libya and Egypt means anything, Islamists could very well take over Syria if the current government were to be overthrown. It's Sharia or bust for the Saudis. Lebanese, Iraqis back in the day, Egyptians, Tunisians, Turks, and others are pretty goddamn heretical by Saudi religious standards, and they don't like this.
2) Clearing out any administration in any means friendly with Israel and/or Iran. The Syrians are friendly with Iran. The Saudis in particular hate this given their shitfest with Iran and pretty much using Iraq as a sort of battleground along with the Iranians over spreading their influence/political power, during the Iraq War. The Saudis hate the Iranians and Israelis. They don't talk so much about the Israelis though because Iran is a much bigger threat to their interests.
On August 03 2012 02:01 perser84 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 01 2012 21:13 raviy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2012 19:11 zalz wrote:On July 20 2012 18:43 Xanthopsia wrote:Was watching this on the news today and I would love it if someone could please explain to me why Russia and China veto UN interjection in the issue. I've read that Russia is an ally with the Syrian government but don't quite understand China's reasoning to veto. Thanks The current Syrian regime is an ally to Iran. The middle-east is split between three real powers: Iran - Shia Islam Saudi-Arabi - Sunni Islam (and its own personal Wahabi strain, but it masquerades as Sunni) Israel - Western/Jewish These three powers bump into one another, with each hating the other two. The struggle between Iran and Saudi is, in the minds of the people engaged in it, a struggle for the soul of Islam. Syria was one of Iran's few really reliable allies in the region, so of course they want to keep them there. Syria is also, I believe, the only army base that Russia has in the region. If they loose that, their influence over the entire region isn't just destroyed from a practical sense (in losing their last base) but also by showing any potential allies that Russia will leave out to hang when the going gets tough. China, on the other hand, is mostly in it for Iranian favor. Iran and China are very compatible countries. Iran has been isolated a great deal, but with acces to the Chinese market they can maintain economic growth. China on the other hand needs more reliable sources for oil, of which Iran is the most obvious. On a deeper level the two nations share a similar cultural legacy. Both have a long and rich history as empires. Both feel cheated from that position by Western influences, and both (arguably China more) are on the rise. Finally, and this is getting really nitty-gritty, the Chinese governments really hates the rise of Islam within its own borders. Saudi-Arabia is very active in spreading their Wahabism, bankrolling the construction of mosques and paying for books that "properly" explain how the Quran should be read (hint: their way). Iran, and by extension Shia Islam, is much less about being projected. China would greatly preffer an Iranian dominated middle-east, because they feel that Iran is much more respectfull of their sovereignty, something which isn't just paramount for the Chinese government, but also for the Chinese people themselves who feel very strongly about their cultural identity. So, Russia plays ball because they are in bed with Syria. China mostly supports them because they want to win favor with Iran. I agree with most of what you're saying except for two points. Russia's "military base" in Syria is a non-factor. It's not even classified a military base. It's a scrappy 40 year old naval facility that can't host any of Russia's current major warships. The facility itself is manned by somewhere between 4 to 12 people. China also needs to win no favour with Iran. It's not like Iran would reduce trade or diplomatic ties with China if China were to support intervention in Syria. Iran couldn't afford to alienate China. My view is that China and Russia's main reasons for being against a foreign intervention is that they support stability above all else. China and Russia both have problems with secessionist Islamic peoples (let's not call them radicals for once), and don't want to see any support given to them by militant Islamic networks, such as Al-Qaeda, East Turkestan Islamic Movement, the Haqqani Network, etc. They would rather Middle Eastern nations be ruled by governments that can effectively secure the country, regardless of whether it results in human rights violations. Whether Libya is better now than it was under Qaddafi is a matter of opinion and subject to debate. But I can assure you that Libya in the eyes of China and Russia is a far less stable entity, and creates a risk to their own interests both in the region and at home. On a side note, I'm tired of most people portraying the Syrian issue as a clear case of good and evil, with the Western nations and the Syrian rebels as knights in shining armour while Assad, Russia and China are portrayed as brutal oppressors. Foreign intervention may or may not be a good thing for the Syrian people, but know this: i agree with you here 100% but some nation act like they do it for the poor syrian people
Politics 101. Always give some kind of "noble" reason for going to war to sell it to the people to mask (albeit very poorly) more selfish, twisted motives. The fact that for thousands of years humanity has always been continuously so gullible and stupid to always fall for it, whether it is "our god says it is just" or "for freedom" or "for humanitarian assistance" when 95% of the time the true reason has been for expanding interests and power, makes me really ashamed of my species.
|
Libyans went liberal, not Islamist. The Egyptians went Islamist, but considering the alternative was Mubarak stooge, it was the lesser of two evils.
When Islamists are the lesser evil, that is saying something. If we believe Islamism is a flawed system that doesn't work (which it is) then we should be willing to let it fall. The Egyptian people will vote them out of if they fail. If they dismantle the democracy, the people will rise up again.
The same goes for Syria. You can't tell people to accept the status quo, just because there is a risk in a revolution.
Yeah, Syria was secular, but it cracked down on everyone. It had one of the worst human rights abuses before the revolution started, and it held that for decades on end. The grip that the government had on the country is best summarized by how quickly they managed to shut it off from the outside world.
There has been a civil war within Islam long before the west was dragged into it.
Saying that all politics is organized through a machivelian system is just ridiculous. Two examples that contradict that are Libya and Iraq. Both countries would have gladly accepted a hand if the US had given it to them, in fact, Libya was already back reasonably back in the fold.
The situation in the middle-east isn't born from machivelian power-plays by western governments. It is simply a struggle that we could largely ignore before 9/11 forced us to pay attention.
Are governments purely directed by morals? No, but nor are they purely dictated by interests. Discounting politicians as humans and believing that they have no system of values, only a system of interests, is simply not true. It is a weak attempt at simplifying the entire political landscape.
How easy it would be if we could say that all politics was done with only one thing in mind. This week it's interest. Next week it is oil.
The truth is that the world far more complex, and politicians being humans, are also subject to political beliefs, some of which really do include a belief that freedom of speech and democracy should be spread.
|
On August 04 2012 07:27 zalz wrote:
Libyans went liberal, not Islamist. The Egyptians went Islamist, but considering the alternative was Mubarak stooge, it was the lesser of two evils.
When Islamists are the lesser evil, that is saying something. If we believe Islamism is a flawed system that doesn't work (which it is) then we should be willing to let it fall. The Egyptian people will vote them out of if they fail. If they dismantle the democracy, the people will rise up again.
The same goes for Syria. You can't tell people to accept the status quo, just because there is a risk in a revolution.
Yeah, Syria was secular, but it cracked down on everyone. It had one of the worst human rights abuses before the revolution started, and it held that for decades on end. The grip that the government had on the country is best summarized by how quickly they managed to shut it off from the outside world.
There has been a civil war within Islam long before the west was dragged into it.
Saying that all politics is organized through a machivelian system is just ridiculous. Two examples that contradict that are Libya and Iraq. Both countries would have gladly accepted a hand if the US had given it to them, in fact, Libya was already back reasonably back in the fold.
The situation in the middle-east isn't born from machivelian power-plays by western governments. It is simply a struggle that we could largely ignore before 9/11 forced us to pay attention.
Are governments purely directed by morals? No, but nor are they purely dictated by interests. Discounting politicians as humans and believing that they have no system of values, only a system of interests, is simply not true. It is a weak attempt at simplifying the entire political landscape.
How easy it would be if we could say that all politics was done with only one thing in mind. This week it's interest. Next week it is oil.
The truth is that the world far more complex, and politicians being humans, are also subject to political beliefs, some of which really do include a belief that freedom of speech and democracy should be spread.
Libya's become liberal? That's why the Libyan government instituted Sharia back in October and with Islamists such as Al Qaeda in the Maghreb and LIFG being big players in Libya, and who provided a good amount of the leadership of the revolution as well. AQIM made big news just recently too in some other African country. Libya also had the highest per capita of foreign fighters in Iraq apparently. And the foreign fighters in Iraq weren't like the local resistance. Their goal wasn't to free the country, it was to terrorize and spread their backward beliefs and politics, whether from Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran ,etc.
If you haven't noticed, the US has been involved in the Mideast since those nations gained political independence, not since 9/11. Even as early as '53, we engineered a royal clusterfuck in Iran as far as huge things go.
Iraq? Deliberately turning one of the better developing countries into a terrible shithole through sanctions on everything (and this is even before the Iraq War) when all the US and ours pals (made things a lot easier in the UN to get our way with the USSR on the brink of collapse) needed to do was put sanctions on arms/weapons is not lending a helping hand. That's simply brutality and destruction, even genocide if we are also to consider Holodomor to be genocide, against a growing country we and the Israelis did not like (the Israelis did bomb them in '82 as well in fact) and wanted out of the Mideastern scene. I can't say too much about Libya since it hasn't been on the news everyday for the past 8 years, but apparently living conditions have dropped quite a bit, not to mention the implementation of Sharia makes things a thousand times worse in its own right.
The Egyptians went Islamist
I really hate Mubarak especially since he was just our bitch and basically was a sellout on the Egyptian people in many ways, but if you're saying a secular leader who kept the peace with Israel is better than batshit insane fanatical Muslim Brotherhood who are trying to set up Sharia and now have 8 million Egyptian Christians living in fear, and having the Israelis on edge is a good thing, then I don't know what to say dude, because as bad as Mubarak was, he is highly preferable to Islamofascists. Especially in a country like Egypt.
Another thing: The military still holds the real power in Egypt, not the Islamists. This isn't something obscure either, which surprises me a bit that you didn't know this. This is the only good thing going for Egypt right now. If the Muslim Brotherhood actually held the power, Egypt would already have Sharia, the Copts would be persecuted, and there'd be some kind of shitstorm with Israel.
You know what else? Egypt is the biggest media center in the arab world. If the Muslim Brotherhood had true power, and was filling the entertainment/media industry with their Islamist shit, trust me, it would have some influence on those few regions left in the Mideast that are still secular. The military rule isn't popular, but yes, it could be much worse than that. The biggest mistake of the Nasser/Sadat/Mubarak administrations was keeping a leash on the MB rather than simply wiping them out, but I guess they naively didn't anticipate that the order would be overthrown.
|
On August 04 2012 07:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Libya's become liberal? That's why the Libyan government instituted Sharia back in October and with Islamists such as Al Qaeda in the Maghreb and LIFG being big players in Libya, and who provided a good amount of the leadership of the revolution as well. AQIM made big news just recently too in some other African country. Libya also had the highest per capita of foreign fighters in Iraq apparently. And the foreign fighters in Iraq weren't like the local resistance. Their goal wasn't to free the country, it was to terrorize and spread their backward beliefs and politics, whether from Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran ,etc.
They said they would like to install Sharia, but they are on the transitional government, which thus far hasn't done much Sharia enforcing of any kind.
Meanwhile, in the elections, the Libyans elected a liberal group over an Islamist one. So, once they are given the control over the country, I wouldn't be too negative about their chances.
If you haven't noticed, the US has been involved in the Mideast since those nations gained political independence, not since 9/11. Even as early as '53, we engineered a royal clusterfuck in Iran as far as huge things go.
There is a substantial difference between having CIA agents and diplomats in a region, and having troops on active duty there. Yeah, the US has always been involved in the middle-east, but not to this degree, where we actively have to build bridges between Sunnis and Shias if we want any kind of stability.
Pre-occupation we could have left the Sunnis and Shias to go at each others throat and nobody would argue that we had an obligation to stop them. With troops there, the thing becomes a great deal more difficult to ignore.
Iraq? Deliberately turning one of the better developing countries into a terrible shithole through sanctions on everything (and this is even before the Iraq War) when all the US and ours pals (made things a lot easier in the UN to get our way with the USSR on the brink of collapse) needed to do was put sanctions on arms/weapons is not lending a helping hand. That's simply brutality and destruction, even genocide if we are also to consider Holodomor to be genocide, against a growing country we and the Israelis did not like (the Israelis did bomb them in '82 as well in fact) and wanted out of the Mideastern scene. I can't say too much about Libya since it hasn't been on the news everyday for the past 8 years, but apparently living conditions have dropped quite a bit, not to mention the implementation of Sharia makes things a thousand times worse in its own right.
Yeah, deliberately turning the prosperous Iraq into a shithole. I wonder why we did that.
Ooh yeah, I remember, cause they couldn't stop invading everything and everyone that happened to show their back to Iraq. Don't try and make them into anything they weren't.
Their internal policies were atrocious, one of the worst human rights records you can imagine, and their foreign policy was surprisingly medieval in its goals. Or should the US have shrugged and let them annex Kuwait?
I really hate Mubarak especially since he was just our bitch and basically was a sellout on the Egyptian people in many ways, but if you're saying a secular leader who kept the peace with Israel is better than batshit insane fanatical Muslim Brotherhood who are trying to set up Sharia and now have 8 million Egyptian Christians living in fear, and having the Israelis on edge is a good thing, then I don't know what to say dude, because as bad as Mubarak was, he is highly preferable to Islamofascists. Especially in a country like Egypt.
You have to let these people and their systems fail. If you don't let them see why Islamism is shit in practice, they will keep idealizing it forever.
Another thing: The military still holds the real power in Egypt, not the Islamists. This isn't something obscure either, which surprises me a bit that you didn't know this. This is the only good thing going for Egypt right now. If the Muslim Brotherhood actually held the power, Egypt would already have Sharia, the Copts would be persecuted, and there'd be some kind of shitstorm with Israel.
Who ever said that I didn't know this? Considering they operate the majority of the economy, it would indeed be somewhat hard to miss.
But again, if the military just goes back to Mubarak days, you get the same mess all over again. People won't be permitted to be politically active, so they will gather in their mosques every friday and discuss politics there. Politics in a mosque tend to be rather Islamist in nature.
Keeping them down is what is causing them to latch onto Islamism, the only political alternative they dare to speak about.
You know what else? Egypt is the biggest media center in the arab world. If the Muslim Brotherhood had true power, and was filling the entertainment/media industry with their Islamist shit, trust me, it would have some influence on those few regions left in the Mideast that are still secular. The military rule isn't popular, but yes, it could be much worse than that. The biggest mistake of the Nasser/Sadat/Mubarak administrations was keeping a leash on the MB rather than simply wiping them out, but I guess they naively didn't anticipate that the order would be overthrown.
Again, the problem is that by keeping these people down, they aren't given any alternative than Islamism.
These dictatorial governments ban political gatherings, and really just gatherings of any kind, but the only gathering they can't ban, are religious gatherings.
If the US banned all political and other gatherings, the only place people could meet in groups would be sunday morning at church.
Given time, the Egyptian people will learn that Islamism is a dead-end and they will vote for other candidates.
|
A brigade of the Syrian rebel army has posted an online video claiming that the 48 Iranians it kidnapped were members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, and has warned Tehran of further abductions over its support for the Syrian government.
Forty-eight Iranian pilgrims were kidnapped from a bus in the Syrian capital on Saturday, the Iranian embassy consular chief in Damascus, told Iran's state television.
"Armed terrorist groups kidnapped 48 Iranian pilgrims on their way to the airport," Majid Kamjou told the IRIB network, which gave the report on its website.
In the video released on Sunday, fighters of the al-Baraa Brigade of the Free Syrian Army said that they had "captured 48 of the shabiha [militiamen] of Iran who were on a reconnaissance mission in Damascus".
"During the investigation, we found that some of them were officers in the Revolutionary Guards," said a man dressed in an FSA officer's uniform, showing documents taken from one of the men, who appeared in the background.
Source
|
Believe me or not these are people who are hostile to the west. they just want more war to create chaos in the area even further to abuse the Middle East.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
