Demdem:

The crisis didn't start with rebels picking up arms, instead it started with peaceful protests all over the country which Assad heavily crushed. Those participants still want him to go and he will surely go. U can also laugh in kutumpe for all I care.

Assad should be very wicked that he cant see D number of D dead in his country to step down. This is a case of only u and ppl are just wasting in millions 4 it. He should call 4 a handover strategy to make post-transition era free of militias in D country aftr he has left, so as there wil be organization, peace and safty.

Demdem:

those multitudes that went out to protest against Assad for months in Syria. Assad crushed them. Those are his countrymen that no longer want him and not france, UK etc

Which multitudes? The ones you counted during your referendum abi?

I suppose it doesn't matter how many people come out in supposed 'protest' anymore, so long as the west has certified them as majority, they are the majority, right?

And while you're still running the figures, do you know how many people died during Occupy bla bla protests in US and other western countries? Well, you may not so google and see the figures. They covered up so it wouldn't look significant.

That last one brings us to; No government will ever tolerate any threat to its existence. More so, the moment you pick up arms against the government, you lose every right to protection. QED

If you're picking arms against the government, you must be darn ready to see it through! You don't start the fight and start crying unfair advantage, like seriously!!! If your struggle is legit and you have 'the majority' it will NEVER take this long to topple an 'unwanted government'.

Messi j: Assad should be very wicked that he cant see D number of D dead in his country to step down. This is a case of only u and ppl are just wasting in millions 4 it. He should call 4 a handover strategy to make post-transition era free of militias in D country aftr he has left, so as there wil be organization, peace and safty.

I gues we can come start a riot in ur area and solicit finance from every GEJ hater, it won't matter if we're minority, so long as we show lives are being lost and GEJ is 'unwanted' that qualifies him to leave Aso Rock. Yipeeee!!, ryt?

Nigerians

Ayatullah:
@Mankand, You are a confusionist, why are you posting the incidence of May, 2013 for the fresh attack of August 2013. Are you an Israeli Agent?

Dude where do you come from? which part of the world do you live in? This is a very very recent incident. it means you do not even make research, rather you sit with BBA. Keep watching Beverly

#EWU

The media wont show you this rare picture of Israeli soldiers arresting Palestinian police...Nothing can be more unfair than this !

Horus:

When America used chemical weapons in Vietnam nobody called it "crossing a red line"

Guess there was no red line in that era then. They only had white chalk!

Onosas: I suspect the rebels even America new it only that they woun't admit it in the public. There was a leaked video some months ago showing some army deserters training some foriegn terrorist fighting the Asad govt on how to create biological and chemical weapons.
If there is any success the islamic terrorist has gained in this Syrian war, it will be the aqusition of the technical know-how on the making of biological weapons. And thier greater success will be to amassed as many sophiscated weapons as possible as soon Asad regimes falls.
In addition, i see the aquisition of chemical weapon as a game changer in thier quest to terrorised the globe. Moreover the knowledge of chemical weapons will soon spread to other terrorist group across the world including Nigeria.

I concur. The thing is they (the powers controlling western civilization) want Assad out by all means,in order to create chaos.So their ordo ab chao can kick in. Imagine Syria in the hands of rebels infiltrated by al qaeda, islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups? They will just face Israel straight and start another round of wars. Don't believe anything you hear in the news. The truth will shock you.

NO LONG TIN:


Bullshit!! You keep contradicting yourself, u said the west incited the protest/demonstration in Syria, then in another line u claimed the rebels are begging for America's help.

Why do Muslim always blame America or Israel for any protest in the middle east?

They always blame us(we that refuse to think like them) of being blind/illiterate or believing western propaganda, but have they ever stop to think that they are the ones blind or fed islamic/Arab propaganda.


The protest in Egypt that removed Mubarak was blamed on the west, the recent one that removed the Muslim brotherhood was blamed on the west too HABA!!

The peaceful protest in Syria which later became violent because Asad attacked them - the west, but I remember clearly Muslims blaming USA for not intervening, they claimed it was because they don't have oil.

Most Muslim are the ones being lied to by Islamic /Arab propaganda, if 'the west' supports Asad, them go complain, if they support the rebels, they go complain, if they do nothing, them go still complain said goes for egypt

Bros o, you have summarised it wella. This lenghty rhetoric by lastpage to thrive point is unnecessary. America will remain ever respected for the role it plays to insist on respect for human life. When a suppose legitimate govt decided to open fire on it citizens just as Saddam Hussein freely used chemical on its ppl for demanding that he step down and you expect the west to back down. The impunity, attrocities and disrespect perpetuated by Saddam, Ghadafi and Assad against its ppl are long over do which necessitated the western intervention. Anyone faulsly accusing America of being responsible for the protest is being economical with the truth. What of that of Baraihn, saudi, tunisia? Was it also masterminded by the West? America has equaly condemned the crack down on the ppl by the above mentioned govt, but its refusal to directly get involved is because the situation has not escalated to the point of opening fire on its ppl as saddam, Assad and late Ghaddafi were known to have done. Israel is mainly capitalising on the situation to weaken any future threat from iran and syria. So blaming U.s for any up rising is not only malicious but an attempt to give her a bad name as usual.

Ufuoma UN:

You do not §ëë any big picture. Your facts ain't sound. How do u expect me to believe your funny theory of saying this whole drama is an isreali ploy to dominate the middle east. Its sound like a joke from a story book. As much as you want to believe that the USA often meddle in international politics out of greed and personal gain, you might also want to know that kids are dying everyday in syria, women are dying. Something needs to be done. If you remember vividly this crisis started when the syria govt began to open fire on protesters, killing them with roof snipers and all that. Why would a govt sworn to defend its subjects bring them death in return. The fact remains that the syrian govt has increasingly become unpopular over the past few months. Call a spade a spade. The Assad regime has outlived its welcome.

I'll gladly support any such initiative by Uncle Sam.

Ummmm....

Same happens in North Korea, parts of Russia, China, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Bahrain ........ to mention a few televised places.
Where's Uncle Sam to intervene ............. btw... how e take be Uncle... why not Grandpa.... as their recent actions appear a little geriatric!!

Though its sad, Injustice unfortunately abounds everywhere. It takes on different cloaks with varying effervescent emotions. But due process and cold logic has to take precedence!!!!!

Posterity not emotions has to play a major role in decision-making..... don't kill a few 10s of thousands now ............to leave an entire region of millions running into billions in turmoil for decades... in simple terms. I'm aware that things are far more complicated than this.

I can imagine the "Defence Arcade.. different military, paramilitary, private arms suppliers, consultants and advisors............. and their flotilla" smiling all the way to the banks. Guaranteed income for a few decades or centenaries!!!!!!

Dear!!!! So that argument/debate has been overused, over-flogged!!!!

Give us something more credible and wholesome.



.

Demdem:

no i didnt say that. This report on the opening page isnt true in this instance. The mandate of the inspectors who are currently in Syria does not include determining who is responsible. U seems to be daft. really daft to believe a report that has been in the news for months posted on the first page applies to a scenario that occurred between last week and now.

I still believe that you know nothing about politics. Most of your reasoning are based on delusion. So, the mandate does not include determining who's responsible, but you're already here pointing fingers at the government on other threads. As soon you heard it points to the thug-like rebels, the report became invalid.

Please it's not a must we all must comment on political issues. Some people just observe and leave, try it and you might love it.

Pattey:

I gues we can come start a riot in ur area and solicit finance from every GEJ hater, it won't matter if we're minority, so long as we show lives are being lost and GEJ is 'unwanted' that qualifies him to leave Aso Rock. Yipeeee!!, ryt?

Nigerians

Based on your logic, GEJ should step down because Boko Haram that has killed thousand want an Islamic state. Please rethink.

Demdem:

What u believe or believe not is non of my business and the very least of my concern. U talk of delusions, do u even know the meaning? U that believe y aren't deluded, what have u said so far that u have been able to backed up factually?
Convince me that u are not daft by bringing to this thread my qoutes where I held the syrian govt culpable. prove to all that u aren't a fool by substantiating ur shameless lie.
This report is obviously wrong and false currently and my position has always been both Assad and even the rebels simply can't be trusted.
Nematode, wake up.

A wise man once said, I only argue with my equals,others I enlighten. A typical characteristic of deluded soul; ability to forget what he'd said on various threads. I don't know how much evidence you need, if you cannot see the thug-like and terrorist nature of the so-called rebels. GEJ should have resigned because some bunch of BOKO HARAM are causing the death of thousands.

Please, your opinions are yours, but being intransigent or dogmatic will lead you to nowhere.

Lordlexy: Bros o, you have summarised it wella. This lenghty rhetoric by lastpage to thrive point is unnecessary. America will remain ever respected for the role it plays to insist on respect for human life. When a suppose legitimate govt decided to open fire on it citizens just as Saddam Hussein freely used chemical on its ppl for demanding that he step down and you expect the west to back down. The impunity, attrocities and disrespect perpetuated by Saddam, Ghadafi and Assad against its ppl are long over do which necessitated the western intervention. Anyone faulsly accusing America of being responsible for the protest is being economical with the truth. What of that of Baraihn, saudi, tunisia? Was it also masterminded by the West? America has equaly condemned the crack down on the ppl by the above mentioned govt, but its refusal to directly get involved is because the situation has not escalated to the point of opening fire on its ppl as saddam, Assad and late Ghaddafi were known to have done. Israel is mainly capitalising on the situation to weaken any future threat from iran and syria. So blaming U.s for any up rising is not only malicious but an attempt to give her a bad name as usual.

When did Saddam open fire on his people? Where did you ever read or hear there was protest against Saddam Hussein before America's invasion?

donedy:

Based on your logic, GEJ should step down because Boko Haram that has killed thousand want an Islamic state. Please rethink.

No, that is your logic! You're the one who believes Assad should step down because some foreign backed terrorists want him out of office! . . . Now that you think otherwise after I used GEJ as an example, shouldn't you do some reaaaal thinking?

From onset, I suspected the rebels to have used the chemical weapons and here we are with early indications suggesting same. There are unconfirmed reports now that Turkey actually provided these Stone Age terrorists with chemical weapons to use and blame it on the government in order to hasten western intervention. But trust the west, this investigation too will be dismissed if it does anything short of indicting Assad’s regime. America’s already preempted the result of the investigation by blaming the regime. The game plan is even if the investigation turns out in favour of the Syrian government, the west will still blame Syria for its inability to protect its deposits of chemical weapons, hence the necessity of foreign intervention! We are all witnesses to how other investigations ended up there.

The war in Syria is no longer a revolution even if it started as such. Majority of the fighters are not Syrians. These are islamist jihadist groups recruited from all over the world by Turkey and some Gulf States; Saudi Arabia is fighting Assad’s regime mostly for ideological and political reasons. The Saudi royal family arrogates to themselves the custodianship of the Sunni Salafist form of Islam. They don’t hide their passionate hatred for anything Shiite. Iran on the other hand represents the Shiite ideology in the region and its growing influence worries the Saudi royal family. Already Iraq is lost to the Shiites, which by the way has the second largest oil reserve in the region. Bahrain is the next. Syria has sunni majourity but governed by minority alawite, a branch of Shiite sect, although the leaders the[b][/b]mselves are secular or non practicing muslims. Qatar and Turkey have strong economic interests in getting rid of Assad. Qatar wants to be supplying Europe with gas but the pipes must pass through Syria to reach turkey, substituting Russia as the major supplier of Gas to the old continent. A step that will adversely affect Russian economy and tilt the balance in favor of Europe. And Syria has consistently refused to allow the project go through due to its strategic and historic alliance with Russia.
America on the other hand would like to see Assad out of the way at any cost. To the extent that America is now allying with terrorist groups to fight a common enemy. The US feels it is a payback time now for the role Assad played after the invasion of Iraq by allowing militants to cross freely into Iraq and fight American soldiers there. They would also want to weaken the influence of Iran in the region by decimating its strongest ally. Hizboullah is also a factor. Syrian government is a major supplier of arms and logistic support to the Lebanese militia who have proven to be more than a thorn in Israeli flesh. We can now see clearly how it’s a proxy war waged on behalf of some international powers period.

Chemical weapon is not what you can get easily in the market.

I have two theories.

1. Assad used it
2. USA gave it to the Rebels to create sympathy.

Whichever one, the 2 side are to be blamed for everything.

Egyptian people said they dont want Husnie Mubarak, he stepped aside.
What is wrong with Assad?

Majority of Syrians are Sunnis. They said he should go, why murdering millions of people just to keep power after 40 years. Na only him dey Syria?

Rebels too- Must you go to that extent to waste your people's life because of Assad? Where is Fidel Castro now?
No long thing. Time is powerful than bomb.

Anyways, I suggest UN embark on peace keeping.

Let Assad step down and face ICC. Alqaida/rebels dispersed and disarmed. And let rebel leaders face ICC. ASSAD=Rebel Leaders. They are both killers.

This is a must read for all of you. As far back 2007, award winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his article "The Re-direction" had reported what laid in wait for Syria. All you see is as a result of collusion between the United States, Israel, Saudi, Qatar and Turkey. These rebels are foreign backed jihadists shipped and flown in en-masse from Libya and other Arab countries via Turkey and surrounding countries by the United States, trained in Turkey and Jordan by the United States, supported logistically and intelligence wise by the Israelis and Turks and heavily funded by the autocratic Saudi regime.

This is not about the much used excuse of "establishing democracy" or protecting the Syrian people or coming to their aid in the form of a "humanitarian" exercise . This is about the lust for power and resources, about hegemony and dominance,about control and keeping at bay the aspirations of countries that stand up to the Americans and Israelis....It is about what has ultimately been behind all conflicts and turmoil : GREED... Take note of the name Bandar Ibn Sultan (Bandar Bush) cos there will be more on him later....

Lengthy but absolutely worth the read....


Annals of National Security

THE REDIRECTION

Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
by Seymour M. Hersh March 5, 2007


Efforts to curb Iran’s influence have involved the United States in worsening Sunni-Shiite tensions.


Keywords
Middle East Strategies;
Policy Shifts;
Bush Administration;
Iran;
Saudi Arabia;
Sunnis;
Cheney, Dick (Vice-President)

A STRATEGIC SHIFT


I n the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. Its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made defiant pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and his country’s right to pursue its nuclear program, and last week its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on state television that “realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by the U.S. and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region.”

After the revolution of 1979 brought a religious government to power, the United States broke with Iran and cultivated closer relations with the leaders of Sunni Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. That calculation became more complex after the September 11th attacks, especially with regard to the Saudis. Al Qaeda is Sunni, and many of its operatives came from extremist religious circles inside Saudi Arabia. Before the invasion of Iraq, in 2003, Administration officials, influenced by neoconservative ideologues, assumed that a Shiite government there could provide a pro-American balance to Sunni extremists, since Iraq’s Shiite majority had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. They ignored warnings from the intelligence community about the ties between Iraqi Shiite leaders and Iran, where some had lived in exile for years. Now, to the distress of the White House, Iran has forged a close relationship with the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.


The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”


from the issue|cartoon bank


Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public

continuation...


PRINCE BANDAR’S GAME


T he Administration’s effort to diminish Iranian authority in the Middle East has relied heavily on Saudi Arabia and on Prince Bandar, the Saudi national-security adviser. Bandar served as the Ambassador to the United States for twenty-two years, until 2005, and has maintained a friendship with President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. In his new post, he continues to meet privately with them. Senior White House officials have made several visits to Saudi Arabia recently, some of them not disclosed.

Last November, Cheney flew to Saudi Arabia for a surprise meeting with King Abdullah and Bandar. The Times reported that the King warned Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back its fellow-Sunnis in Iraq if the United States were to withdraw. A European intelligence official told me that the meeting also focussed on more general Saudi fears about “the rise of the Shiites.” In response, “The Saudis are starting to use their leverage—money.”

In a royal family rife with competition, Bandar has, over the years, built a power base that relies largely on his close relationship with the U.S., which is crucial to the Saudis. Bandar was succeeded as Ambassador by Prince Turki al-Faisal; Turki resigned after eighteen months and was replaced by Adel A. al-Jubeir, a bureaucrat who has worked with Bandar. A former Saudi diplomat told me that during Turki’s tenure he became aware of private meetings involving Bandar and senior White House officials, including Cheney and Abrams. “I assume Turki was not happy with that,” the Saudi said. But, he added, “I don’t think that Bandar is going off on his own.” Although Turki dislikes Bandar, the Saudi said, he shared his goal of challenging the spread of Shiite power in the Middle East.

The split between Shiites and Sunnis goes back to a bitter divide, in the seventh century, over who should succeed the Prophet Muhammad. Sunnis dominated the medieval caliphate and the Ottoman Empire, and Shiites, traditionally, have been regarded more as outsiders. Worldwide, ninety per cent of Muslims are Sunni, but Shiites are a majority in Iran, Iraq, and Bahrain, and are the largest Muslim group in Lebanon. Their concentration in a volatile, oil-rich region has led to concern in the West and among Sunnis about the emergence of a “Shiite crescent”—especially given Iran’s increased geopolitical weight.

“The Saudis still see the world through the days of the Ottoman Empire, when Sunni Muslims ruled the roost and the Shiites were the lowest class,” Frederic Hof, a retired military officer who is an expert on the Middle East, told me. If Bandar was seen as bringing about a shift in U.S. policy in favor of the Sunnis, he added, it would greatly enhance his standing within the royal family.

The Saudis are driven by their fear that Iran could tilt the balance of power not only in the region but within their own country. Saudi Arabia has a significant Shiite minority in its Eastern Province, a region of major oil fields; sectarian tensions are high in the province. The royal family believes that Iranian operatives, working with local Shiites, have been behind many terrorist attacks inside the kingdom, according to Vali Nasr. “Today, the only army capable of containing Iran”—the Iraqi Army—“has been destroyed by the United States. You’re now dealing with an Iran that could be nuclear-capable and has a standing army of four hundred and fifty thousand soldiers.” (Saudi Arabia has seventy-five thousand troops in its standing army.)

Nasr went on, “The Saudis have considerable financial means, and have deep relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis”—Sunni extremists who view Shiites as apostates. “The last time Iran was a threat, the Saudis were able to mobilize the worst kinds of Islamic radicals. Once you get them out of the box, you can’t put them back.”

The Saudi royal family has been, by turns, both a sponsor and a target of Sunni extremists, who object to the corruption and decadence among the family’s myriad princes. The princes are gambling that they will not be overthrown as long as they continue to support religious schools and charities linked to the extremists. The Administration’s new strategy is heavily dependent on this bargain.

Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools, training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.

This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

The Saudi said that, in his country’s view, it was taking a political risk by joining the U.S. in challenging Iran: Bandar is already seen in the Arab world as being too close to the Bush Administration. “We have two nightmares,” the former diplomat told me. “For Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.”

I n the past year, the Saudis, the Israelis, and the Bush Administration have developed a series of informal understandings about their new strategic direction. At least four main elements were involved, the U.S. government consultant told me. First, Israel would be assured that its security was paramount and that Washington and Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states shared its concern about Iran.

Second, the Saudis would urge Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian party that has received support from Iran, to curtail its anti-Israeli aggression and to begin serious talks about sharing leadership with Fatah, the more secular Palestinian group. (In February, the Saudis brokered a deal at Mecca between the two factions. However, Israel and the U.S. have expressed dissatisfaction with the terms.)

The third component was that the Bush Administration would work directly with Sunni nations to counteract Shiite ascendance in the region.

Fourth, the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations. Syria is a major conduit of arms to Hezbollah. The Saudi government is also at odds with the Syrians over the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, in Beirut in 2005, for which it believes the Assad government was responsible. Hariri, a billionaire Sunni, was closely associated with the Saudi regime and with Prince Bandar. (A U.N. inquiry strongly suggested that the Syrians were involved, but offered no direct evidence; there are plans for another investigation, by an international tribunal.)

Patrick Clawson, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, depicted the Saudis’ coöperation with the White House as a significant breakthrough. “The Saudis understand that if they want the Administration to make a more generous political offer to the Palestinians they have to persuade the Arab states to make a more generous offer to the Israelis,” Clawson told me. The new diplomatic approach, he added, “shows a real degree of effort and sophistication as well as a deftness of touch not always associated with this Administration. Who’s running the greater risk—we or the Saudis? At a time when America’s standing in the Middle East is extremely low, the Saudis are actually embracing us. We should count our blessings.”

The Pentagon consultant had a different view. He said that the Administration had turned to Bandar as a “fallback,” because it had realized that the failing war in Iraq could leave the Middle East “up for grabs.”

continuation......

JIHADIS IN LEBANON



T he focus of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, after Iran, is Lebanon, where the Saudis have been deeply involved in efforts by the Administration to support the Lebanese government. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is struggling to stay in power against a persistent opposition led by Hezbollah, the Shiite organization, and its leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. Hezbollah has an extensive infrastructure, an estimated two to three thousand active fighters, and thousands of additional members.

Hezbollah has been on the State Department’s terrorist list since 1997. The organization has been implicated in the 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut that killed two hundred and forty-one military men. It has also been accused of complicity in the kidnapping of Americans, including the C.I.A. station chief in Lebanon, who died in captivity, and a Marine colonel serving on a U.N. peacekeeping mission, who was killed. (Nasrallah has denied that the group was involved in these incidents.) Nasrallah is seen by many as a staunch terrorist, who has said that he regards Israel as a state that has no right to exist. Many in the Arab world, however, especially Shiites, view him as a resistance leader who withstood Israel in last summer’s thirty-three-day war, and Siniora as a weak politician who relies on America’s support but was unable to persuade President Bush to call for an end to the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. (Photographs of Siniora kissing Condoleezza Rice on the cheek when she visited during the war were prominently displayed during street protests in Beirut.)

The Bush Administration has publicly pledged the Siniora government a billion dollars in aid since last summer. A donors’ conference in Paris, in January, which the U.S. helped organize, yielded pledges of almost eight billion more, including a promise of more than a billion from the Saudis. The American pledge includes more than two hundred million dollars in military aid, and forty million dollars for internal security.

The United States has also given clandestine support to the Siniora government, according to the former senior intelligence official and the U.S. government consultant. “We are in a program to enhance the Sunni capability to resist Shiite influence, and we’re spreading the money around as much as we can,” the former senior intelligence official said. The problem was that such money “always gets in more pockets than you think it will,” he said. “In this process, we’re financing a lot of bad guys with some serious potential unintended consequences. We don’t have the ability to determine and get pay vouchers signed by the people we like and avoid the people we don’t like. It’s a very high-risk venture.”

American, European, and Arab officials I spoke to told me that the Siniora government and its allies had allowed some aid to end up in the hands of emerging Sunni radical groups in northern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and around Palestinian refugee camps in the south. These groups, though small, are seen as a buffer to Hezbollah; at the same time, their ideological ties are with Al Qaeda.

During a conversation with me, the former Saudi diplomat accused Nasrallah of attempting “to hijack the state,” but he also objected to the Lebanese and Saudi sponsorship of Sunni jihadists in Lebanon. “Salafis are sick and hateful, and I’m very much against the idea of flirting with them,” he said. “They hate the Shiites, but they hate Americans more. If you try to outsmart them, they will outsmart us. It will be ugly.”

Alastair Crooke, who spent nearly thirty years in MI6, the British intelligence service, and now works for Conflicts Forum, a think tank in Beirut, told me, “The Lebanese government is opening space for these people to come in. It could be very dangerous.” Crooke said that one Sunni extremist group, Fatah al-Islam, had splintered from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, in northern Lebanon. Its membership at the time was less than two hundred. “I was told that within twenty-four hours they were being offered weapons and money by people presenting themselves as representatives of the Lebanese government’s interests—presumably to take on Hezbollah,” Crooke said.

The largest of the groups, Asbat al-Ansar, is situated in the Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp. Asbat al-Ansar has received arms and supplies from Lebanese internal-security forces and militias associated with the Siniora government.

In 2005, according to a report by the U.S.-based International Crisis Group, Saad Hariri, the Sunni majority leader of the Lebanese parliament and the son of the slain former Prime Minister—Saad inherited more than four billion dollars after his father’s assassination—paid forty-eight thousand dollars in bail for four members of an Islamic militant group from Dinniyeh. The men had been arrested while trying to establish an Islamic mini-state in northern Lebanon. The Crisis Group noted that many of the militants “had trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.”

According to the Crisis Group report, Saad Hariri later used his parliamentary majority to obtain amnesty for twenty-two of the Dinniyeh Islamists, as well as for seven militants suspected of plotting to bomb the Italian and Ukrainian embassies in Beirut, the previous year. (He also arranged a pardon for Samir Geagea, a Maronite Christian militia leader, who had been convicted of four political murders, including the assassination, in 1987, of Prime Minister Rashid Karami.) Hariri described his actions to reporters as humanitarian.

In an interview in Beirut, a senior official in the Siniora government acknowledged that there were Sunni jihadists operating inside Lebanon. “We have a liberal attitude that allows Al Qaeda types to have a presence here,” he said. He related this to concerns that Iran or Syria might decide to turn Lebanon into a “theatre of conflict.”

The official said that his government was in a no-win situation. Without a political settlement with Hezbollah, he said, Lebanon could “slide into a conflict,” in which Hezbollah fought openly with Sunni forces, with potentially horrific consequences. But if Hezbollah agreed to a settlement yet still maintained a separate army, allied with Iran and Syria, “Lebanon could become a target. In both cases, we become a target.”

The Bush Administration has portrayed its support of the Siniora government as an example of the President’s belief in democracy, and his desire to prevent other powers from interfering in Lebanon. When Hezbollah led street demonstrations in Beirut in December, John Bolton, who was then the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., called them “part of the Iran-Syria-inspired coup.”

Leslie H. Gelb, a past president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the Administration’s policy was less pro democracy than “pro American national security. The fact is that it would be terribly dangerous if Hezbollah ran Lebanon.” The fall of the Siniora government would be seen, Gelb said, “as a signal in the Middle East of the decline of the United States and the ascendancy of the terrorism threat. And so any change in the distribution of political power in Lebanon has to be opposed by the United States—and we’re justified in helping any non-Shiite parties resist that change. We should say this publicly, instead of talking about democracy.”

Martin Indyk, of the Saban Center, said, however, that the United States “does not have enough pull to stop the moderates in Lebanon from dealing with the extremists.” He added, “The President sees the region as divided between moderates and extremists, but our regional friends see it as divided between Sunnis and Shia. The Sunnis that we view as extremists are regarded by our Sunni allies simply as Sunnis.”

I n January, after an outburst of street violence in Beirut involving supporters of both the Siniora government and Hezbollah, Prince Bandar flew to Tehran to discuss the political impasse in Lebanon and to meet with Ali Larijani, the Iranians’ negotiator on nuclear issues. According to a Middle Eastern ambassador, Bandar’s mission—which the ambassador said was endorsed by the White House—also aimed “to create problems between the Iranians and Syria.” There had been tensions between the two countries about Syrian talks with Israel, and the Saudis’ goal was to encourage a breach. However, the ambassador said, “It did not work. Syria and Iran are not going to betray each other. Bandar’s approach is very unlikely to succeed.”

Walid Jumblatt, who is the leader of the Druze minority in Lebanon and a strong Siniora supporter, has attacked Nasrallah as an agent of Syria, and has repeatedly told foreign journalists that Hezbollah is under the direct control of the religious leadership in Iran. In a conversation with me last December, he depicted Bashir Assad, the Syrian President, as a “serial killer.” Nasrallah, he said, was “morally guilty” of the assassination of Rafik Hariri and the murder, last November, of Pierre Gemayel, a member of the Siniora Cabinet, because of his support for the Syrians.

Jumblatt then told me that he had met with Vice-President Cheney in Washington last fall to discuss, among other issues, the possibility of undermining Assad. He and his colleagues advised Cheney that, if the United States does try to move against Syria, members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would be “the ones to talk to,” Jumblatt said.

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, a branch of a radical Sunni movement founded in Egypt in 1928, engaged in more than a decade of violent opposition to the regime of Hafez Assad, Bashir’s father. In 1982, the Brotherhood took control of the city of Hama; Assad bombarded the city for a week, killing between six thousand and twenty thousand people. Membership in the Brotherhood is punishable by death in Syria. The Brotherhood is also an avowed enemy of the U.S. and of Israel. Nevertheless, Jumblatt said, “We told Cheney that the basic link between Iran and Lebanon is Syria—and to weaken Iran you need to open the door to effective Syrian opposition.”

There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.

Jumblatt said he understood that the issue was a sensitive one for the White House. “I told Cheney that some people in the Arab world, mainly the Egyptians”—whose moderate Sunni leadership has been fighting the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for decades—“won’t like it if the United States helps the Brotherhood. But if you don’t take on Syria we will be face to face in Lebanon with Hezbollah in a long fight, and one we might not win.”

continuation...

THE SHEIKH



O n a warm, clear night early last December, in a bombed-out suburb a few miles south of downtown Beirut, I got a preview of how the Administration’s new strategy might play out in Lebanon. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, who has been in hiding, had agreed to an interview. Security arrangements for the meeting were secretive and elaborate. I was driven, in the back seat of a darkened car, to a damaged underground garage somewhere in Beirut, searched with a handheld scanner, placed in a second car to be driven to yet another bomb-scarred underground garage, and transferred again. Last summer, it was reported that Israel was trying to kill Nasrallah, but the extraordinary precautions were not due only to that threat. Nasrallah’s aides told me that they believe he is a prime target of fellow-Arabs, primarily Jordanian intelligence operatives, as well as Sunni jihadists who they believe are affiliated with Al Qaeda. (The government consultant and a retired four-star general said that Jordanian intelligence, with support from the U.S. and Israel, had been trying to infiltrate Shiite groups, to work against Hezbollah. Jordan’s King Abdullah II has warned that a Shiite government in Iraq that was close to Iran would lead to the emergence of a Shiite crescent.) This is something of an ironic turn: Nasrallah’s battle with Israel last summer turned him—a Shiite—into the most popular and influential figure among Sunnis and Shiites throughout the region. In recent months, however, he has increasingly been seen by many Sunnis not as a symbol of Arab unity but as a participant in a sectarian war.

Nasrallah, dressed, as usual, in religious garb, was waiting for me in an unremarkable apartment. One of his advisers said that he was not likely to remain there overnight; he has been on the move since his decision, last July, to order the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid set off the thirty-three-day war. Nasrallah has since said publicly—and repeated to me—that he misjudged the Israeli response. “We just wanted to capture prisoners for exchange purposes,” he told me. “We never wanted to drag the region into war.”

Nasrallah accused the Bush Administration of working with Israel to deliberately instigate fitna, an Arabic word that is used to mean “insurrection and fragmentation within Islam.” “In my opinion, there is a huge campaign through the media throughout the world to put each side up against the other,” he said. “I believe that all this is being run by American and Israeli intelligence.” (He did not provide any specific evidence for this.) He said that the U.S. war in Iraq had increased sectarian tensions, but argued that Hezbollah had tried to prevent them from spreading into Lebanon. (Sunni-Shiite confrontations increased, along with violence, in the weeks after we talked.)

Nasrallah said he believed that President Bush’s goal was “the drawing of a new map for the region. They want the partition of Iraq. Iraq is not on the edge of a civil war—there is a civil war. There is ethnic and sectarian cleansing. The daily killing and displacement which is taking place in Iraq aims at achieving three Iraqi parts, which will be sectarian and ethnically pure as a prelude to the partition of Iraq. Within one or two years at the most, there will be total Sunni areas, total Shiite areas, and total Kurdish areas. Even in Baghdad, there is a fear that it might be divided into two areas, one Sunni and one Shiite.”

He went on, “I can say that President Bush is lying when he says he does not want Iraq to be partitioned. All the facts occurring now on the ground make you swear he is dragging Iraq to partition. And a day will come when he will say, ‘I cannot do anything, since the Iraqis want the partition of their country and I honor the wishes of the people of Iraq.’ ”

Nasrallah said he believed that America also wanted to bring about the partition of Lebanon and of Syria. In Syria, he said, the result would be to push the country “into chaos and internal battles like in Iraq.” In Lebanon, “There will be a Sunni state, an Alawi state, a Christian state, and a Druze state.” But, he said, “I do not know if there will be a Shiite state.” Nasrallah told me that he suspected that one aim of the Israeli bombing of Lebanon last summer was “the destruction of Shiite areas and the displacement of Shiites from Lebanon. The idea was to have the Shiites of Lebanon and Syria flee to southern Iraq,” which is dominated by Shiites. “I am not sure, but I smell this,” he told me.

Partition would leave Israel surrounded by “small tranquil states,” he said. “I can assure you that the Saudi kingdom will also be divided, and the issue will reach to North African states. There will be small ethnic and confessional states,” he said. “In other words, Israel will be the most important and the strongest state in a region that has been partitioned into ethnic and confessional states that are in agreement with each other. This is the new Middle East.”

In fact, the Bush Administration has adamantly resisted talk of partitioning Iraq, and its public stances suggest that the White House sees a future Lebanon that is intact, with a weak, disarmed Hezbollah playing, at most, a minor political role. There is also no evidence to support Nasrallah’s belief that the Israelis were seeking to drive the Shiites into southern Iraq. Nevertheless, Nasrallah’s vision of a larger sectarian conflict in which the United States is implicated suggests a possible consequence of the White House’s new strategy.

In the interview, Nasrallah made mollifying gestures and promises that would likely be met with skepticism by his opponents. “If the United States says that discussions with the likes of us can be useful and influential in determining American policy in the region, we have no objection to talks or meetings,” he said. “But, if their aim through this meeting is to impose their policy on us, it will be a waste of time.” He said that the Hezbollah militia, unless attacked, would operate only within the borders of Lebanon, and pledged to disarm it when the Lebanese Army was able to stand up. Nasrallah said that he had no interest in initiating another war with Israel. However, he added that he was anticipating, and preparing for, another Israeli attack, later this year.

Nasrallah further insisted that the street demonstrations in Beirut would continue until the Siniora government fell or met his coalition’s political demands. “Practically speaking, this government cannot rule,” he told me. “It might issue orders, but the majority of the Lebanese people will not abide and will not recognize the legitimacy of this government. Siniora remains in office because of international support, but this does not mean that Siniora can rule Lebanon.”

President Bush’s repeated praise of the Siniora government, Nasrallah said, “is the best service to the Lebanese opposition he can give, because it weakens their position vis-à-vis the Lebanese people and the Arab and Islamic populations. They are betting on us getting tired. We did not get tired during the war, so how could we get tired in a demonstration?”

T here is sharp division inside and outside the Bush Administration about how best to deal with Nasrallah, and whether he could, in fact, be a partner in a political settlement. The outgoing director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, in a farewell briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee, in January, said that Hezbollah “lies at the center of Iran’s terrorist strategy. . . . It could decide to conduct attacks against U.S. interests in the event it feels its survival or that of Iran is threatened. . . . Lebanese Hezbollah sees itself as Tehran’s partner.”

In 2002, Richard Armitage, then the Deputy Secretary of State, called Hezbollah “the A-team” of terrorists. In a recent interview, however, Armitage acknowledged that the issue has become somewhat more complicated. Nasrallah, Armitage told me, has emerged as “a political force of some note, with a political role to play inside Lebanon if he chooses to do so.” In terms of public relations and political gamesmanship, Armitage said, Nasrallah “is the smartest man in the Middle East.” But, he added, Nasrallah “has got to make it clear that he wants to play an appropriate role as the loyal opposition. For me, there’s still a blood debt to pay”—a reference to the murdered colonel and the Marine barracks bombing.

Robert Baer, a former longtime C.I.A. agent in Lebanon, has been a severe critic of Hezbollah and has warned of its links to Iranian-sponsored terrorism. But now, he told me, “we’ve got Sunni Arabs preparing for cataclysmic conflict, and we will need somebody to protect the Christians in Lebanon. It used to be the French and the United States who would do it, and now it’s going to be Nasrallah and the Shiites.

“The most important story in the Middle East is the growth of Nasrallah from a street guy to a leader—from a terrorist to a statesman,” Baer added. “The dog that didn’t bark this summer”—during the war with Israel—“is Shiite terrorism.” Baer was referring to fears that Nasrallah, in addition to firing rockets into Israel and kidnapping its soldiers, might set in motion a wave of terror attacks on Israeli and American targets around the world. “He could have pulled the trigger, but he did not,” Baer said.

Most members of the intelligence and diplomatic communities acknowledge Hezbollah’s ongoing ties to Iran. But there is disagreement about the extent to which Nasrallah would put aside Hezbollah’s interests in favor of Iran’s. A former C.I.A. officer who also served in Lebanon called Nasrallah “a Lebanese phenomenon,” adding, “Yes, he’s aided by Iran and Syria, but Hezbollah’s gone beyond that.” He told me that there was a period in the late eighties and early nineties when the C.I.A. station in Beirut was able to clandestinely monitor Nasrallah’s conversations. He described Nasrallah as “a gang leader who was able to make deals with the other gangs. He had contacts with everybody.”

continuation...

TELLING CONGRESS



T he Bush Administration’s reliance on clandestine operations that have not been reported to Congress and its dealings with intermediaries with questionable agendas have recalled, for some in Washington, an earlier chapter in history. Two decades ago, the Reagan Administration attempted to fund the Nicaraguan contras illegally, with the help of secret arms sales to Iran. Saudi money was involved in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal, and a few of the players back then—notably Prince Bandar and Elliott Abrams—are involved in today’s dealings.

Iran-Contra was the subject of an informal “lessons learned” discussion two years ago among veterans of the scandal. Abrams led the discussion. One conclusion was that even though the program was eventually exposed, it had been possible to execute it without telling Congress. As to what the experience taught them, in terms of future covert operations, the participants found: “One, you can’t trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can’t trust the uniformed military, and four, it’s got to be run out of the Vice-President’s office”—a reference to Cheney’s role, the former senior intelligence official said.

I was subsequently told by the two government consultants and the former senior intelligence official that the echoes of Iran-Contra were a factor in Negroponte’s decision to resign from the National Intelligence directorship and accept a sub-Cabinet position of Deputy Secretary of State. (Negroponte declined to comment.)

The former senior intelligence official also told me that Negroponte did not want a repeat of his experience in the Reagan Administration, when he served as Ambassador to Honduras. “Negroponte said, ‘No way. I’m not going down that road again, with the N.S.C. running operations off the books, with no finding.’ ” (In the case of covert C.I.A. operations, the President must issue a written finding and inform Congress.) Negroponte stayed on as Deputy Secretary of State, he added, because “he believes he can influence the government in a positive way.”

The government consultant said that Negroponte shared the White House’s policy goals but “wanted to do it by the book.” The Pentagon consultant also told me that “there was a sense at the senior-ranks level that he wasn’t fully on board with the more adventurous clandestine initiatives.” It was also true, he said, that Negroponte “had problems with this Rube Goldberg policy contraption for fixing the Middle East.”

The Pentagon consultant added that one difficulty, in terms of oversight, was accounting for covert funds. “There are many, many pots of black money, scattered in many places and used all over the world on a variety of missions,” he said. The budgetary chaos in Iraq, where billions of dollars are unaccounted for, has made it a vehicle for such transactions, according to the former senior intelligence official and the retired four-star general.

“This goes back to Iran-Contra,” a former National Security Council aide told me. “And much of what they’re doing is to keep the agency out of it.” He said that Congress was not being briefed on the full extent of the U.S.-Saudi operations. And, he said, “The C.I.A. is asking, ‘What’s going on?’ They’re concerned, because they think it’s amateur hour.”

The issue of oversight is beginning to get more attention from Congress. Last November, the Congressional Research Service issued a report for Congress on what it depicted as the Administration’s blurring of the line between C.I.A. activities and strictly military ones, which do not have the same reporting requirements. And the Senate Intelligence Committee, headed by Senator Jay Rockefeller, has scheduled a hearing for March 8th on Defense Department intelligence activities.

Senator Ron Wyden, of Oregon, a Democrat who is a member of the Intelligence Committee, told me, “The Bush Administration has frequently failed to meet its legal obligation to keep the Intelligence Committee fully and currently informed. Time and again, the answer has been ‘Trust us.’ ” Wyden said, “It is hard for me to trust the Administration.” ♦

ILLUSTRATION: GUY BILLOUT

Ufuoma UN:

You do not §ëë any big picture. Your facts ain't sound. How do u expect me to believe your funny theory of saying this whole drama is an isreali ploy to dominate the middle east. Its sound like a joke from a story book. As much as you want to believe that the USA often meddle in international politics out of greed and personal gain, you might also want to know that kids are dying everyday in syria, women are dying. Something needs to be done.

If you remember vividly this crisis started when the syria govt began to open fire on protesters, killing them with roof snipers and all that. Why would a govt sworn to defend its subjects bring them death in return. The fact remains that the syrian govt has increasingly become unpopular over the past few months. Call a spade a spade. The Assad regime has outlived its welcome.

I'll gladly support any such initiative by Uncle Sam.

Sir,
Lets wait a bit, lets wait for the Americans to "tell the world" their EVIDENCE which shows that IT WAS ASSAD that gassed his people. Then, you can believe whatever you think is right, logical and sensible.

How are we sure it is "Govt forces" that killed those people you talked about? The last time Boko Haram killed in Borno state, they were wearing Nig. Army Uniforms! Does that make them "Nigerian" Govt forces?
Who amongst us does not know how to "put meat in the mouth and make it disappear"? Yoruba adage!

On israel, I want you to review ALL ISRAELI PRONUNCIATION on this Syria issue in the last two weeks or so.

*Israeli PM said last week: We monitor ALL their conversation and from their conversation, we can conclude that it was Assad forces that used the Nerve gas. (But they failed to make such conversation public!)

*Next day, Obama said: "Our friends in the region" have "told us" that it was Assad that used chemical weapons.
When asked if this information was credible and who told them, he said "They are credible" ...but refused to name their friend in the Middle East who told them so!

*Today, just before his motion was defeated in the House, David Cameron of britain repeated that same line: "Our ally in the Middle East told us they monitor chatter of the Assad Regime, before and after the gas attack and Britain is sure it is Assad that the gas. He also failed to "name" the Ally country in the Middle East.

Meanwhile Israel was quickly distributing gas masks to its population, even before America and Britain made it public that they would attack Syria!

Lastpage!
contd.

Let us leave that side and reason together:

1.) When the war started and Assad was winning, the Rebels asked for military support. At that point, No one was even thinking of using Chemical weapons.

2.) Then Israel (yes, same Israel) shared intelligence that Syria's chemical weapons could get into the hands of Alquaeda and other groups it classed as terrorists.

3.) America and its allies were not sure where the weapons requested by the Rebels will end. So they delayed and Assad forces keep gaining ground!

4.) Obama then came on air and declared that "Use of Chemical weapons will be a red line which if crossed, america will intervene militarily. Dont ask me "on whose side" or "against whom", that answer is obvious.

5.) Then Israel began to bomb targets in Syria (it did it about three occasions). It tried to "soften" the Syrian Army so the rebels can gain an upper hand. Everyone was hoping Assad could be toppled without foreign intervention. Mind you, Israel claimed it was bombing Weapons destined for Hezbollah and other groups, from Assad Govt. How can a Govt at war, under blockade, be dashing out its weapons at that time?

6.) Then we saw how the rebels tried to manufacture "crude chemical weapons" and began testing it on Animals. There are many videos online where they tested it and said this is "how Assad and his supporters will die".

7.) Still, no "major" weapons was coming from the West. Saudi Arabia, Quatar and Turkey acted as conduits and suppliers of light weapons to the rebels bust still, they could not turn the war in their favor, rather, Assad forces were gaining more grounds!

8.) Then some rebels were caught in Turkey (A supporter of the Rebels) with Cannisters of chemical gas! Social Media was quick to publish this apprehension but officially, the news was blacked-out from western media screens. Syria also showed the world under ground tunnels in areas just captured from rebels, with hundreds of drums from Quatar, containing AGs preparation agents! Again, most Western News media blacked this out.

9.) Suddenly, in an area where Assad forces were conducting operations against the Rebels, with a lot of his soldiers on ground, Sari gas was used. Note that you only need about a cup of this gas to kill thousands of people as it quickly turns to vapour gas and is carried in the air.

10.) Before you could say 'Obama', the Red line predicted a year later has suddenly been crossed and America must intervene, as we know now, against the Assad regime!

Question is: Who used the gas?

The Answer lies in one simple "logical question": Who stands to benefit from it use?

Lastpage!
Contd.

Question is: Who used the gas?

The Answer lies in one simple "logical question": Who stands to benefit from its use?


a.) Will Assad actually use the gas when he knew for over a year, that this was the "excuse' the West and America needed to invade his country? You think he is that stewpid and suicidal? I dont think so.

b.)Since America and the West have refused to supply heavy weapons to the rebels, since they are losing the war, what other options are open to them than to "force the hand of America and its Allies INTO THE WAR",.... on their behalf?

I dont credit myself with being smart but l also dont credit myself with being this stewpid, if l cant deduce this!
Its a No-Brainer!

c.) Who else stands to benefit in the destruction of Syria?
1.) Israel: We have posted some of the reasons before (To become the hegemonic de-factor Super power in the region).
Strangely, it is also Israel that is providing "the Intelligence" America and Europe is relying on, to blame Assad for the use of the Chemical Weapons! Is that no suspicious and a strange coincidence?

2.) Israel again!: The long term goal is Iran but Iran could be a "difficult and dirty war" if and if their friends and allies/sympathisers are not "neutralised" before hand. Those "friends of Iran" have to be weakened and broken-up before an attack on Iran. That way, Iran is weakened and isolated.

From my own assessment, America will attack Syria latest by Sunday Night.
U.N inspectors MUST leave by Saturday morning. Obama is "committed" to keep his words spoken a year ago.
he was naive and pushed into making that statement, he was fooled into not looking or doubting the intelligence he is relying on, to blame Assad. Now he has No CHOICE!

History and time will prove me right, just like in the Iraq war, The Libyan conflict, this one too will come and go.

*What is the take of you guys on this? When is the attack likely to start? Will it be "shock and awe" as usual, will it take out Assad immediately? What about Russia, will it bark but refuse to bite as usual or will it get involved this time? Will Turkey seize the opportunity to invade? The U.N Report, how credible is the U.N itself, going by the pronunciations of Ban Ki Moon in the past? Lets discuss.

Lastpage!

Okay, this kind of 'discussion on paper' gets a bit long if it is going to be meaningful.
I understand those who cant read more than ten lines, nothing l can do about it, just skip my post and stop complaining.
My apologies.

Pattey:

Which multitudes? The ones you counted during your referendum abi?

I suppose it doesn't matter how many people come out in supposed 'protest' anymore, so long as the west has certified them as majority, they are the majority, right?

And while you're still running the figures, do you know how many people died during Occupy bla bla protests in US and other western countries? Well, you may not so google and see the figures. They covered up so it wouldn't look significant.

That last one brings us to; No government will ever tolerate any threat to its existence. More so, the moment you pick up arms against the government, you lose every right to protection. QED

If you're picking arms against the government, you must be darn ready to see it through! You don't start the fight and start crying unfair advantage, like seriously!!! If your struggle is legit and you have 'the majority' it will NEVER take this long to topple an 'unwanted government'.

Well put.
Civil Protest and Violent, Armed overthrow of a Govt are NOT the same thing!
Not even America will allow you to hold a weapon over a single Policeman, in the name of "protest" (You get shot immediately, no questions asked).... not to talk of a govt!

lastpage!

racino: We can now see clearly how it’s a proxy war waged on behalf of some international powers period.

I hate to quote someone's "whole post" otherwise, your post deserve to be read more than once.
But your post is a pointer that we still have people that "think deep" in this place!

1000 Thumbs-Up!

Lastpage!

Underground:

Keywords
Middle East Strategies;
Policy Shifts;
Bush Administration;
Iran;
Saudi Arabia;
Sunnis;
Cheney, Dick D*i*c*k (Vice-President)

A STRATEGIC SHIFT

... just an observation, D*i*ck Cheney be im name, no need to malign the man's name now?
Lastpage!

lastpage:
4.) Obama then came on air and declared that "Use of Chemical weapons will be a red line which if crossed, america will intervene militarily. Dont ask me "on whose side" or "against whom", that answer is obvious.

lastpage:
U.N inspectors MUST leave by Saturday morning. Obama is "committed" to keep his words spoken a year ago.
he was naive and pushed into making that statement, he was fooled into not looking or doubting the intelligence he is relying on, to blame Assad. Now he has No CHOICE!

He really boxed him self into a corner by drawing 'red lines' on various issues all over the middle east and making statements like "Assad must go" , he probably didn't think Assad would go down suicide lane by crossing the chemical weapons redline. That was the wiggle room he needed then to relieve himself of the pressure of earlier intervention; in retrospect, his choice of words was not well thought out.

Obama seems to convince himself more everytime he comes on air to speak about it and he's getting closer to a point of no return where there will be no turning back on the idea of a military intervention.
An attack seems imminent but I really hope he makes a U-turn cos it's not going to be an easy strike-and-get-out mission like the pro-military intervention guys think it will be.

No doubt, Israel stands to gain from Assad's removal but no one can say for sure that they are the masterminds behind this. The same way no one can say for sure that it was or was not the Syrian army on orders from Assad or his brutal brother, could be the rebels, Hezbollah, . . . . . . Everyone is a suspect right now

Assad also stands to gain from a US military strike cos that will ramp up more support from Russia, China and Iran. This is a far-fetched scenario though.

Another party that will be hoping the strike happens are the merchants of war, the manufacturers of missiles. It was reported that there has been an incredible rise in the value of their stocks over the past weeks. - Suspect number ? ? ? ? or just proponents of a military strike.


John McCain still insists on an immediate military intervention, I wonder what the middle east will be like by now if he was presdient.