US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby compared2what? » Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:00 am

Ben D wrote:I don't think it will be that cut and dried as the article makes out Aldebaran, the Western/Israel/Saudi - Qatar Sunni strategy that Alice spoke of above to create division between Sunni and Shiite throughout the ME is obviously meeting with some success, but I feel reasonably sure that not all members and supporters of Hamas will take the bait, and these will be the ones who are aware that Israel is behind the Syrian uprising.


It isn't as cut-and-dried as the article makes out, but not because Haniyeh's remarks in support of the Syrian uprising mean that he's pro-Israel. He's not, as he made perfectly clear in the very same speech:

We will not recognise Israel: Hamas leader at Azhar conference
Hamas leader Haniya rouses the audience attending Al-Azhar's solidarity conference for Palestine after repeated Israeli settlers' attacks against Al-Aqsa Mosque; gathering expresses solidarity with Syrian revolution
Ahram Online, Friday 24 Feb 2012


Hundreds gathered at Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo on Friday in response to a call for protests by various political and religious groups against the recent Israeli settler attacks against Palestinians and brutal crackdown by the Syrian regime on the pro-democracy movement.

Al-Azhar mosque, the Al-Quds committee of the Arab Medical Union and several political and revolutionary movements have organised the event.

The conference heated as Hamas leader Ismail Haniya took the stage to address the audience on the Palestine-Israeli conflict.

Haniya urged Egyptians for solidarity with Palestinians in Al-Quds (Jerusalem). "We will never acknowledge Israel," insisted Hanyia during Al-Azhar's conference.

This is the first time the Palestinian leader speaks to the public in Egypt.

The conference was planned in response to the repeated attacks by radical Israeli settlers on one of the most sacred mosques, Al-Aqsa. They demand the end of the blockade of the Gaza Strip and the conference is also meant as a sign of solidarity with Palestinians.

Key speakers will discuss unifying Arab and Islamic efforts to stop the Judaisation of East Jerusalem.

Also on the agenda is how to support Syrians throughout Al-Assad's bloody crackdown against the uprising that is trying to topple his regime. The conference is expected to demand that the Arab League freeze Syria's membership and activate the Common Arab Defence Agreement to protect unarmed Syrians.

Moreover, Salah Sultan, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood and the International Union for Muslim Scholars, is expected to make a speech, as is former Syrian parliamentarian Mamon El-Homsi.


LINK
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Ben D » Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:04 am

compared2what? wrote:
Ben D wrote:I don't think it will be that cut and dried as the article makes out Aldebaran, the Western/Israel/Saudi - Qatar Sunni strategy that Alice spoke of above to create division between Sunni and Shiite throughout the ME is obviously meeting with some success, but I feel reasonably sure that not all members and supporters of Hamas will take the bait, and these will be the ones who are aware that Israel is behind the Syrian uprising.


It isn't as cut-and-dried as the article makes out, but not because Haniyeh's remarks in support of the Syrian uprising mean that he's pro-Israel. He's not, as he made perfectly clear in the very same speech:

I don't know how you got the impression that I implied Hamas members who support the Syrian uprising are pro-Israel, because that didn't and couldn't enter my mind, it would be preposterous. What I'm suggesting is that the Hamas Sunni are being influenced by Zionist Israel/US/Europe/Saudi/Qatar/Al Qaeda, etc. clique to support the Syrian Sunni insurgents against apostate (radical Sunni pov) Alawites who rule Syria.

And I suggested also I thought that some Hamas who see through the Zionist-West-Arab Sunni plot will refrain from joining those who are supporting the Syrian uprising because they are aware that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah have been their main supporters for so long.

Here is what I posted on this thread on Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:58 pm - Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?.

Ben D wrote:Both Alice, because it is my understanding that the regime change action against Syria is planned to break the nexus that Empire sees between Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. From a military pov, it's a smart move since it would remove an important link in the logistics chain and would make it difficult for Hezbollah to be resupplied, and one would suppose that in the event of an attack on Iran, Empire would consider it quite possible that Hezbollah would also join in the response from Iran against Israel. Iow, imo it's a part of the plan that is ultimately meant to remove Iran as a threat to Empire's ME strategic interests.

Hamas is the only Sunni of the nexus.

I said then it was a smart move and about six weeks later, it seems the Zionist plan is working. Alice explained well about the setting of Sunni against Shiite that was happening in Lebanon as well as Syria earlier in the thread. It seems now they've succeeded in getting Hamas on side.

On edit..Perhaps it is still nor clear what I'm trying explain, so to add clarity (I hope)...I don't mean that Hamas Sunnis actually know that the Zionists are behind the setting of Sunni against Shiite, they don't because they are deceived. Hamas remains anti-Zionist Israel but are in fact by supporting the Syrian insurgents, carrying out the Zionists plan without knowing it.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby compared2what? » Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:17 pm

Ben D wrote:Here is what I posted on this thread on Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:58 pm - Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?.

Ben D wrote:Both Alice, because it is my understanding that the regime change action against Syria is planned to break the nexus that Empire sees between Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. From a military pov, it's a smart move since it would remove an important link in the logistics chain and would make it difficult for Hezbollah to be resupplied, and one would suppose that in the event of an attack on Iran, Empire would consider it quite possible that Hezbollah would also join in the response from Iran against Israel. Iow, imo it's a part of the plan that is ultimately meant to remove Iran as a threat to Empire's ME strategic interests.

Hamas is the only Sunni of the nexus.


Yes. I know.

I said then it was a smart move and about six weeks later, it seems the Zionist plan is working. Alice explained well about the setting of Sunni against Shiite that was happening in Lebanon as well as Syria earlier in the thread. It seems now they've succeeded in getting Hamas on side.

On edit..Perhaps it is still nor clear what I'm trying explain, so to add clarity (I hope)...I don't mean that Hamas Sunnis actually know that the Zionists are behind the setting of Sunni against Shiite, they don't because they are deceived. Hamas remains anti-Zionist Israel but are in fact by supporting the Syrian insurgents, carrying out the Zionists plan without knowing it.


Is there any particular reason to think that's more likely than that Hamas -- just maybe, possibly, by some stretch of the imagination -- decided that their long-term interests might be better served if their strategic allies didn't have completely different goals for Palestine than they do?
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Ben D » Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:00 pm

Yes, in the context of the attempt at regime change in Syria to break the nexus of the alliance between Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, once I could see the common denominator of the strategy being used to create the Sunni- Shiite division in Syria and Lebanon, and being in agreement with Alice on this,...Syrian National Council -snip- = Saudi Arabia/Qatar = Israel, it seems obvious to me that Hamas Sunni would be under great pressure to support their Sunni brethren and have succumbed.

And btw, the Egyptian Sunni are also on side and supporting the Syrian uprising, as Al-Qaida works alongside the Saudis to muster militant support from Sunnis throughout the Middle East to join the Syrian regime change effort.

Now you ask if it's possible that Hamas actually see their decision to support the Syrian regime change as one better suiting their long term goals than the Iran, Syria, Hezbollah clique? Well obviously they do, and particularly so if they think the smart money is on the actual fall of Assad in the not too distant future, but what I'm having difficulty explaining to you is that it is happening due to the Israel/US/Saudi plan to create the Sunni - Shiite conflict, of which most are not cognizant of.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby compared2what? » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:07 am

Right.

Well. I guess that I wonder on what you base your belief that you have better intelligence wrt what Israel is up to than a native resident of Gaza whose life's work -- and (indeed) whose life -- literally depends on knowing such things does. And that's to say nothing about how exactly Israel wins by having Hamas aligned with the newly empowered Muslim Brotherhood/Egypt rather than with the newly embattled Hezbollah/Syria. Because the MB/Egypt -- unlike Hezbollah/Syria -- doesn't just have a vested interest in keeping Hamas in the fight. They want it to win.

Besides which, neither Hezbollah nor Syria lose all that much simply by losing Hamas, in Lebanon or elsewhere, all other things being equal.

So yes. I'm confused.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby compared2what? » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:47 am

Incidentally, I'm not rooting for the victory of Assad, the MB, Hezbollah, Hamas, or Israel. Or the somewhat more hypothetical Saudi/Qatari/Hariri/zionist nexus. Or the destruction of any of the assorted populations whose lives and liberties they impinge upon, separately and/or together. Or the exploitation/perpetuation/creation of sectarian conflict for political ends by, for or of anybody. Because in political terms, they're all plenty bad enough to oppose, by my standards.

So I got no dog in the hunt, in that regard.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Ben D » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:22 am

Lets just say that my intuitive faculty has been quite reliable on matters like these, not perfect mind you, there are always unknown unknowns that factor in sometimes to bring about unexpected results. Not that I expect you to take my word for it, and it really doesn't matter anyway, the action ahead will speak louder than words.

Yes I take your point on the possibility of a future Egyptian MB supporting Hamas in their fight with the Zionist state, But imo, Hamas is taking a large risk by shifting its reliance to Egyptian MB to defeat Israel, rather than sticking with Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran alliance. We will see.

Israel of course would not be any securer with a Hamas/MB alliance, if it were to mature, and I have no doubt Israel has thought about it and devised counter strategic plans. But first things first, Israel (US) is using 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' approach by allying ((intelligence wise) with the relevant Sunni Arab states to create the Sunni - Shiite conflict in Syria and Lebanon (and Iraq btw), as I've explained. If it is successful, the attack on Iran will follow. If it fails, the decision of whether or not to go ahead with the attack on Iran will still be on the table, but obviously the fall out from such an attack with a fully equipped Hezbollah arsenal and logistical resupply lines in place, and with still an effective Syrian Army in place which may join in, it will be much more costly in lives and material.

Hamas would be limited as to what it could do during such a war so can be ignored, and if the war was won by the Israel/US, its game over for Hamas and all Palestinians whose goal it is to reclaim their land, for a middle east ruled by US/Israel/Saudi/etc., would easily be able to bring the Egyptian MB to heel, so game over for them too. And its about this time also that, because 'my friend who was the enemy of my enemy' no longer has an enemy as Hezbollah, Syrian Alawites, and Iran Shiites are defeated, it now becomes an enemy to be put down and so its game over for the Arab Sunnis as well.

Now if the war gets out of control with say Pakistan joining with Iran (It has implied this), then nuclear weapons may be introduced to the ME theatre, and its game over for the Zionist state of Israel. Of course Iran and Pakistan and much of the middle East would suffer, but they would bounce back in time, but the Zionist state of Israel created by the United Nations would disappear off the map.

There is also a possibility of course that such a war could, if the Israel or US made a serious error or misjudgement, bring in the Russian and or Chinese, and then its game over for the whole world, at least in the context of the establishment of an authoritative US dominated one world government any time soon.

I'm sorry C2W, see what happens when I get carried away, I'm almost into end time prophecy fulfillment. I'll stop here and hope I've addressed your questions.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby AlicetheKurious » Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:08 am

compared2what? wrote:And that's to say nothing about how exactly Israel wins by having Hamas aligned with the newly empowered Muslim Brotherhood/Egypt rather than with the newly embattled Hezbollah/Syria. Because the MB/Egypt -- unlike Hezbollah/Syria -- doesn't just have a vested interest in keeping Hamas in the fight. They want it to win.

Besides which, neither Hezbollah nor Syria lose all that much simply by losing Hamas, in Lebanon or elsewhere, all other things being equal.

So yes. I'm confused.


A sure antidote for confusion is the simple rule: follow the money. Always.

Not that long ago, Fateh was a revolutionary Leftist anti-imperialist guerrilla force, before its transformation into the Gucci-wearing, villa-dwelling, jet-setting enforcers of US/Israeli policy among Palestinians and in the greater region. Today, its leaders, chosen by the US and Israel to "represent" the Palestinians, are far more likely to wield gold-plated Mont Blanc pens to sign away Palestinian rights, than AK-47s to defend them. And when their well-paid fighters do take up arms (supplied and trained by the US and, yes, Israel), these are pointed at fellow Palestinians demanding their freedom, not at Israeli occupation forces.

Hamas has gone through several incarnations since it was hatched in the early 80s, but now it is rapidly becoming an "Islamist" version of what Fatah has been since at least the early '90s. Maybe it's just a case of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em," despair leading to a sell-out lubricated with piles of filthy lucre scented with soul-numbing wafts of Wahhabist petro-perfume. Whatever. The motto of Hamas may still officially be "We welcome death!", but that's just for the pleebs; amongst themselves and other people in the know, their new motto, like that of their parent Muslim Brotherhood organization is: "Money talks; bullshit walks".

True, it wasn't always thus -- for a while, during the Mubarak years, when Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood was penned up (though fed and exercised regularly), Hamas acted relatively dependently of its parent organization. Egypt under Mubarak was actively hostile to Hamas, and indeed to the Palestinian people in general. Saudi Arabia and its satellites still gave some financial support to the besieged Palestinians, but not much at all, beyond hot air and promises. Hamas had nothing but the legitimacy it had been given by the elections that brought it to power, and was thus largely subject to the Palestinian people's will. Hamas was poor, surrounded, attacked, maligned, but relatively free. This was the context in which Hamas was able to align itself with those whom it viewed as useful in advancing the Palestinian people's cause, including Hizbullah and Iran, while doing everything possible not to sever its ties to Saudi Arabia and Egypt's Mubarak.

Not any more. After the initial shock wore off, opponents of the Arab revolution sprang into action, closing ranks and calling in all their chips to contain the damage. Their biggest chip by far is the counterfeit grassroots populism of the Muslim Brotherhood, which in reality is a rigidly hierarchical organization in which all decisions are made by a tiny, extremely wealthy elite inextricably bound to the US- and thus zionist-controlled monarchies of the oil-rich Gulf.

“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?"


The people rose up, across the Arab world. We asked for freedom, dignity and social justice, so they gave us the Muslim Brotherhood, via backroom deals and rigged elections, billions of dollars in bribes to buy anybody willing to sell, and torture, military prison and death for those who are not.

The more things change... One year after the revolution began in Egypt, at the very moment that millions of ordinary Egyptians were pouring into the streets to reaffirm their commitment to the revolution's original goals, at the very moment that chants against the ruling military dictatorship were alternating with chants against the Muslim Brotherhood, the single most powerful man in the transnational organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood was busy elsewhere:

The GOP Brotherhood of Egypt

Demonized in the U.S. as radical terrorists, Egypt's Islamists are actually led by free-market businessmen

BY AVI ASHER-SCHAPIRO


While Western alarmists often depict Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood as a shadowy organization with terrorist ties, the Brotherhood’s ideology actually has more in common with America’s Republican Party than with al-Qaida. Few Americans know it but the Brotherhood is a free-market party led by wealthy businessmen whose economic agenda embraces privatization and foreign investment while spurning labor unions and the redistribution of wealth. Like the Republicans in the U.S., the financial interests of the party’s leadership of businessmen and professionals diverge sharply from those of its poor, socially conservative followers.

The Brotherhood, which did not initially support the revolution that began a year ago, reaped its benefits, capturing nearly half the seats in the new parliament, which was seated this week, and vaulting its top leaders into positions of power.

Arguably the most powerful man in the Muslim Brotherhood is Khairat Al-Shater, a multimillionaire tycoon whose financial interests extend into electronics, manufacturing and retail. A strong advocate of privatization, Al-Shater is one of a cadre of Muslim Brotherhood businessmen who helped finance the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party’s impressive electoral victory this winter and is now crafting the FJP’s economic agenda.

At Al-Shater’s luxury furniture outlet Istakbal, a new couch costs about 6,000 Egyptian pounds, about $1,000 in U.S. currency. In a country where 40 percent of the population lives on less than $2 a day, Istakbal’s clientele is largely limited to Egypt’s upper classes.

Although the Brothers do draw significant support from Egypt’s poor and working class, “the Brotherhood is a firmly upper-middle-class organization in its leadership,” says Shadi Hamid, a leading Muslim Brotherhood expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Not surprisingly, these well-to-do Egyptians are eager to safeguard their economic position in the post-Mubarak Egypt. Despite rising economic inequality and poverty, the Brotherhood does not back radical changes in Egypt’s economy.

The FJP’s economic platform is a tame document, rife with promises to root out corruption and tweak Egypt’s tax and subsidies systems, with occasional allusions to an unspecific commitment to “social justice.” The platform praises the mechanisms of the free market and promises that the party will work for “balanced, sustainable and comprehensive economic development.” It is a program that any European conservative party could get behind.

Over the last few months the Brothers have been publicizing their economic conservatism to international investors and financial institutions.

“The Brothers see this as a major source of its appeal among Western audiences,” Hamid explains. “Most people think the Brothers would be aligned with a leftist interventionist approach to the economy. But after taking a second look, most investors find themselves pleasantly surprised when they find out otherwise.”

Speaking to Reuters in November, Hassan Malek, a textile mogul and Brotherhood financier, emphasized that the Brothers “want to attract as much foreign investment as possible … and this needs a big role for the private sector.”

Just last week, Malek was tapped by the Brotherhood to head up the newly formed “Egyptian Business and Investment Association,” a coalition of leading Brotherhood businessmen working to promote private investment.

For his part, Al-Shater has been personally courting select investors and reassuring them in private that the Brothers have no radical plans for the economy.

Over the last few months the Egyptian investment bank EFG-Hermes organized sit-downs between Al-Shater and 14 major investment managers from Europe, the United States and Africa. Al-Shater used the opportunity to reassure investors that the new government shares their goals.

“I believe the meeting dismissed some investors’ concerns about an extreme economic policy,” said Wael Ziada, an official with EFG.

The Brotherhood wants continuity. Al-Shater’s relationship with EFG-Hermes has raised some eyebrows, since the investment bank was partially owned by deposed President Hosni Mubarak’s son Gamal. But the businessmen in the Brotherhood do not seem concerned by this connection, and they are not at all hasty to jettison the Mubaraks’ economic legacy.

Malek has even gone so far as to praise the economic policies of the Mubarak regime. “We can benefit from previous economic decisions. There have been correct ones in the past … Rachid Mohamed Rachid [Mubarak’s minister of trade] understood very well how to attract foreign investment.”

What Malek failed to mention is that Rachid fled to Dubai after the ouster of Mubarak and has since been convicted in absentia of squandering public funds and embezzlement.


Rachid worked to privatize Egyptian industries, reduce taxes and subsidies, and defang unions. This economic model, adopted at the urging of the IMF and international financial institutions, delivered strong economic growth — nearly 6 percent a year from 2004 to 2009 — but also generated inequality. The gains were concentrated in the hands of Egypt’s economic elite, while millions of working-class Egyptians saw their wages stagnate, as rising food prices pushed many to the brink.

This pressure inaugurated a wave of strikes, which were a key component in the uprising that toppled the Mubarak regime last spring. Since Mubarak’s ouster, however, the Brotherhood has taken a hostile line against trade unions. When a wave of strikes rocked Egypt last September, the Brothers sided with business interests and the ruling military junta against the unions.

“The Brothers have been against wildcat strikes and all significant labor actions,” says Zeinab Abdul-Magd, an Egyptian academic and leftists activist. “The Brothers just don’t relate to workers.”

The Brothers do run a number of impressive charity organizations for Egypt’s poor, and during holidays the Brotherhood offers subsidized meat to the poor. The Brotherhood’s candidates won big in last month’s parliamentary elections preaching social justice and promising relief to Egypt’s increasingly impoverished population.

But when it comes to specific policy proposals that could help Egypt’s millions of families who struggle to afford food, the Brothers employ what Shadi Hamid at Brookings calls “strategic ambiguity.”

“Their approach is to be everything to everyone all at once,” but in reality, Hamid says the leaders of the Brotherhood are “not in touch with the shockingly high levels of poverty on the grass-roots level.”

With Egypt facing a looming financial crisis — with rising unemployment and diminishing currency reserves — the real priorities of the Brotherhood will be tested. Despite Islam’s prohibition on interest, the leaders of the FJP have already met with representatives of the IMF who are offering over $3 billion in loans to ease Egypt’s financial burden.

It will be weeks before the new parliament takes any concrete steps to reform Egypt’s economy. But George Ishak, the co-founder of the Free Egyptian Party, a moderate liberal party that only managed to win one seat in the parliament, expressed skepticism that the Muslim Brotherhood would break with the past. “There’s a danger they will continue with the Mubarak policies.”

When asked what he would do differently Ishak responded, “I think we need to focus not just on growth, but instead think about the quality of growth … we need to think about redistribution.”

But that’s not what the Muslim Brotherhood is thinking about. Link


Bottom line: the Muslim Brotherhood is uniquely qualified to serve the zionist project in the Arab world, in the same way and for the same reason as the Saudis have been for decades.

Under Muslim Brotherhood rule, the economic policies that have literally enslaved millions of Arabs to Israel's patrons and allies would remain unchanged.

Politically, the Muslim Brotherhood have demonstrated that they have no intention of dismantling the apparatus of the police state. On the contrary, their actions demonstrate their commitment to entrenching it even further, and giving it, moreover, a religious veneer that would not only criminalize, but excommunicate all domestic opposition.

Best of all, the Muslim Brotherhood are the perfect agents to spread and entrench the divisive Wahhabist cult, which is most effective in propagating sectarian divisions to counteract the nationalism and unity that are the hallmarks of the Arab revolution.

That explains all the cooing and cuddling noises coming out of those meetings between high-level US officials and the Muslim Brotherhood. Incidentally, it also at least partly explains the angry/fearful reaction of the SCAF, lashing out in fear of being locked out and abandoned while its Western patron and the MB continue to give each other footsies under the table. Because openly military dictatorships, while occasionally unavoidable, are so 1970s. As the elites in Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia could tell you from experience, religious astro-turf is far more reliable and durable, and looks just like the real thing, enabling those who spread it to portray themselves as nature-lovers.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby AlicetheKurious » Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:44 am

More sweet nothings from the Syrian National Council (a bed in which zionists and Wahhabists lie together, under the cover of 'liberating the Syrian people'):

    Syrian SNC Official: A Free Syria Will Never Attack Israel
    Kouichi Shirayanagi | 24 February 2012 |


    Syria’s revolution strives to liberate the Syrian people from the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad, not to establish a government that will attack Israel, according to Riad Muasses, the France-based Syrian National Council (SNC) press spokesman.

    “We lost the Golan Heights in 1967 the last time we attacked Israel, and since then the Syrian Army has never had the capacity to attack Israel,” Muasses said.

    “The only thing that would happen if we attacked Israel is that we would lose more land. Israel really has nothing to fear about a free Syria,” he went on.

    Muasses added that the SNC will not be the government that replaces the al-Assad regime but an organization that facilitates a democratic transition culminating in a free and fair election after which a new parliament would govern a post-al-Assad Syria.

    While Muasses said that Syria’s new foreign policy vis-à-vis Russia, Iran and Hezbollah should be decided by a forthcoming parliament, he believed it likely that the new Syrian government would want to distance itself from those parties. “We should have nothing to do with Hezbollah, what have they done for Syria?” Muasses asked. ...Link
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby AlicetheKurious » Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:52 pm

I've mentioned here before that Al-Jazeera has experienced a rash of resignations over the past year, including many of its best field reporters, including senior journalists, and program hosts. I know a former Cairo Bureau Chief who told me that "nobody with any self-respect could work for them," citing constant interference with editorial decisions and the imposition of bias on news coverage.

    Syria’s Electronic Warriors Hit Al Jazeera

    By: Wissam Kanaan

    Published Friday, February 24, 2012

    Emails said to reveal dismay among Al-Jazeera staff over its “biased and unprofessional” coverage of Syria have been leaked by pro-Assad hackers.

    Damascus –
    On Wednesday, the entire staff of the Al Jazeera network allegedly received an email instructing them to change their computer and email passwords.

    Earlier in the week, the network’s server had been hacked by the self-styled Syrian Electronic Army, and some of its secrets were released to the media.

    The major find to be made public was an email exchange between anchorwoman Rula Ibrahim and Beirut-based reporter Ali Hashem. The emails seemed to indicate widespread disaffection within the channel, especially over its coverage of the crisis in Syria.

    Ibrahim wrote to her colleague saying that she had "turned against the revolution" in Syria after realizing that the protests would "destroy the country and lead to a civil war.” She went on to deride the opposition Free Syrian Army, which she described as "a branch of al-Qaeda."

    Ibrahim also complained about the attitudes of various colleagues at the channel’s Doha headquarters, saying some of them “have refused to greet me ever since the outbreak of events in Syria because they hold a grudge against my sect.”

    Al Jazeera staffers were relieved that the email exchange had been leaked, "because it exposed the station's biased and unprofessional coverage Syria.”

    Hashem responded sympathetically, saying he had opted to sit on the fence after sending the channel footage of armed men clashing with the army which he had witnessed while reporting from northeastern Lebanon. He said that after he submitted the video, he was told to return to Beirut on the grounds that he was exhausted.

    In her response, Ibrahim once again protested that she had “been utterly humiliated. They wiped the floor with me because I embarrassed Zuheir Salem, spokesperson for Syria’s Muslim Brothers. As a result, I was prevented from doing any Syrian interviews, and threatened with [a] transfer to the night shift on the pretext that I was making the channel imbalanced.”

    Ibrahim also spoke of how Syrian activists invited onto Al Jazeera use terms of sectarian incitement on air, “which Syrians understand very well.”

    Hashem wondered in response where the channel’s head of news, Ibrahim Hilal, stood in all this. Ibrahim answered that he was “stuck between a rock and a hard place: the agenda and professionalism..."

    This conversation was broadcast in full on the state Syrian News Channel, which also interviewed the hackers who broke through Al Jazeera's information system.

    However, the scoop did not attract the attention that had been hoped for. Like other official Syrian media, the channel is not widely watched and has suffered a loss of viewer confidence.

    Thus the report was barely noticed, and Al Jazeera itself completely disregarded it.

    The media-electronic war between the two camps seems set to escalate.

    Sources in the channel confirmed that the administration had taken no action over the incident, not even approaching Hashem or Ibrahim about it. The sources said it was generally assumed that the pro-regime hackers had accomplices inside the channel, as they would not have otherwise been able to get round its system’s sophisticated security measures.

    The same sources said some Al Jazeera staffers were relieved that the email exchange had been leaked, "because it exposed the station's biased and unprofessional coverage Syria.”

    They also confirmed an allegation Ibrahim had reportedly made in one of her emails: That Ahmad Ibrahim, who is in charge of the channel’s Syria coverage, is the brother of Anas al-Abdeh, a leading member of the opposition Syrian National Council. He allegedly stopped using his family name to avoid drawing attention to the connection.

    The sources said that among the issues concerning Al Jazeera journalists was pressure to start employing the term “martyr” when referring to slain Syrian opposition supporters, but not regime loyalists or members of the security forces.

    They said two camps had emerged within the newsroom: one, headed by Hilal, wanting professional coverage of the coverage, and another “who believe they are part of this war and do not hesitate to show that on air.”

    Ethical standards and the violation of journalists’ privacy seem to be far from anyone’s considerations.

    The sources said that as part of this rivalry, Facebook groups had appeared which were devoted to targeting Al Jazeera journalists "who are guilty of trying to be objective."

    For example, a fierce campaign was launched on social media websites demanding the sacking of Lebanese anchorman Hasan Jammoul. He had challenged an opposition activist to explain in an interview why the shelling of the city Homs was focused on Baba Amr and not other neighborhoods.

    Neither Ibrahim, Hashem, or Hilal were available for comment when contacted by Al-Akhbar.

    Yet the media-electronic war between the two camps seems set to escalate. Syrian President Bashar Assad himself has praised the Syrian Electronic Army, both in his recent speech at Damascus University and in meetings with popular delegations.

    In addition to hacking into Al Jazeera’s emails, the group got into the channel’s breaking news subscription service – and circulated a false story to subscribers that the Emir of Qatar had died of a stroke. This was supposedly a response to the earlier hacking of the messaging service of the pro-regime Syrian al-Dunya channel.

    Following the Army’s latest “victory,” ethical standards and the violation of journalists’ privacy seem to be far from anyone’s considerations. It seems this war will spare no one.

    This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition. Link
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby compared2what? » Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:06 pm

AlicetheKurious wrote:
compared2what? wrote:And that's to say nothing about how exactly Israel wins by having Hamas aligned with the newly empowered Muslim Brotherhood/Egypt rather than with the newly embattled Hezbollah/Syria. Because the MB/Egypt -- unlike Hezbollah/Syria -- doesn't just have a vested interest in keeping Hamas in the fight. They want it to win.

Besides which, neither Hezbollah nor Syria lose all that much simply by losing Hamas, in Lebanon or elsewhere, all other things being equal.

So yes. I'm confused.


A sure antidote for confusion is the simple rule: follow the money. Always.


I agree. I wish you'd do that, in fact. But beyond that, I just don't have the heart to argue with you about it, Alice. Cheers and solidarity to you.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Ben D » Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:07 pm

Seems Russia is serious about preventing 'Democracy' coming to Syria... :)
No “Libyan scenario” for Syria – Putin

MOSCOW, February 27 (RIA Novosti)

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned against a “Libyan scenario” in Syria, saying West-backed military intervention would not bring democracy to this Arab country but would rather compromise the existing system of international security by undermining the authority of the United Nations.

“The implementation of a “Libyan scenario” in Syria should not be allowed,” Putin said in his campaign article on foreign policy, published in the Moskovskiye Novosti newspaper on Monday. Putin was referring to the recent regime change in Libya, which was implemented with the military support of several NATO countries.
-snip-

Putin warned that efforts by the United States and other countries to bypass the Security Council veto by hammering up a coalition of the willing states and striking Syria would undermine the global security system by compromising the central role of the United Nations. “Let me remind you that the veto right is not a whim but an integral part of the global system, codified in the UN Charter, by the way, upon insistence by the United States,” Putin said.

He also said that attempts to bring democracy through military intervention in the Arab world often backfires, with religious extremists coming to surface and trying to change the secular nature of government there. Russia’s leader also referred to another aspect of the so-called “Arab spring”, that of Russian companies getting squeezed from their traditional markets by the companies from the states that participated in overthrowing regimes there. “One can think that the tragic events have been to a certain extent inspired not by human rights concern but by someone’s interest in redistribution of the markets,” Putin said. He added that Moscow will work with the new Arab governments to quickly restore Russia’s economic position there.

Image
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

'US to announce aerial blockade on Syria'

Postby MinM » Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:53 pm

The Pentagon is readying for the possibility of intervention in Syria, aiming to halt Syrian President Bashsar Assad's violent crackdown on protesters, the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported Saturday, citing a US military offical.

According to the official, the intervention scenario calls for the establishment of a buffer zone on the Turkish border, in order to receive Syrian refugees. The Red Cross would then provide the civilians humanitarian aid, before NATO crews would arrive from Turkey and join the efforts.

Related articles:

* US to use 'every tool available' to stop Assad
* 'Friends of Syria' ready ultimatum for Assad
* Syria: We're not responsible for journalists' deaths

The measure would pave the way for the US to declare an aerial blockade on Syria.

The intercession is to be modeled after NATO's efforts in Kosovo, which brought an end to the Serbian control of the region. NATO's plan of action included prolonged aerial shelling.

The US' diplomatic efforts have yet to yield an effective international resolution that would stop the bloodshed. More than 100 protesters have died over the weekend alone, human rights activists said.

Russia, China to join aid efforts?

According to Asharq Al-Awsat, the Pentagon does not anticipate a change of heart on the part of China or Russia, who have opposed foreign intervention or sanctions against Syria. But the US expects the two nations to join the humanitarian aid efforts, support a ceasefire between the Syrian regime and rebels and send special UN envoys to investigate the developments in the country.

The next step in the reported US Department of Defense plan would be to appoint a team of UN observers to monitor the humanitarian aid, and enter Syria. They would need aerial protection, which would eventually lead to an aerial blockade.

The military official said in the interview that the plan is a cautious one, and takes into account the Syrian air force's advanced capabilities.

In his most forceful words to date on the Syrian crisis, US President Barack Obama said Friday the US and its allies would use "every tool available" to end the bloodshed by Assad's government.

"It is time to stop the killing of Syrian citizens by their own government," Obama said in Washington, adding that it "absolutely imperative for the international community to rally and send a clear message to President Assad that it is time for a transition. It is time for that regime to move on."

As government troops relentlessly shelled rebel-held neighborhoods in the besieged city of Homs, thousands of people in dozens of towns staged anti-regime protests under the slogan: "We will revolt for your sake, Baba Amr," referring to the Homs neighborhood that has become the center of the Syrian revolt.

Opposition groups reported that 103 people were killed on Friday by the regime's forces.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 06,00.html
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Nordic » Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:26 pm

So! I guess we're doing Syria first, then Iran.

Cakewalks both, I'm sure. Bring on the popcorn.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Ben D » Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:47 am

Hmmm, first Putin and now China giving the US a serve...
China: US has no moral right to ‘protect’ Arabs

Published: 27 February, 2012, 10:52

China says the US has no right to “protect” Arab peoples, questioning “the sincerity and efficacy of US policy.” The country’s top newspaper replied to Hillary Clinton after she called China’s and Russia’s veto of a UN Syrian resolution "despicable".

The People’s Daily commentary says, "The United States' motive in parading as a 'protector' of the Arab peoples is not difficult to imagine. The problem is what moral basis does it have for this patronizing and egotistical super-arrogance and self-confidence?"

The newspaper recalls the US-led invasion of Iraq. "Even now, violence continues unabated in Iraq, and ordinary people enjoy no security. This alone is enough for us to draw a huge question mark over the sincerity and efficacy of US policy."

The commentary repeated China's argument that its unwillingness to take sides in the conflict best reflects the interests of the Syrian people.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests