Final Battle Starting To Free Aleppo From Terrorists- As Per UN Resolution

The West kills by the own hands - the own democracy. Because the western leaders constantly lie - propagandize, and (allegedly free) central media - quote only this lies but not opposite opinion as it does in RT the channel for example.

 

They won't understand - they've been brainwashed from the cradle to believe the USA is wunnerfull, and Russia is the Evil Empire.

 

I agree ... but one problem: What is with ISIS in Iraq? Will you let them be a pure Iraqi problem or even accept that Iran will intervene directly to help their Shiite brothers leading Iraq in moment against Sunni terrorist of ISIS?

Also.... you know that ISIS is not only Syria and Iraq? they are in Libya, Mali, Sudan, Nigeria and latest on Afghanistan active.

And ... you know that ISIS declares war also against Al Qaida, Hamas, Taliban, Hezbollah and other terror groups who don't follow them?

 

And non western media tells in reverse only the truth and is the angel?
Russia and others don't do this all and are angels in the world?

P.S.

Western central media lies .. but Russian media not? Are you serious and believe this BS really? Wake up! Both sides are using media as propaganda machine to sell the worst BS as truth ... not only the West or only the East / Non-West! This is yours and many other major problem that you bash on the West ... often correctly ... but using the same sort of BS propaganda lies to back this!

 

They're in every country on the planet just waiting for the starting gun to fire.

 

The 2014 Syrian elections were largely free and transparent, which is not to say that Syria was or is a 'democracy' by any means. It merely means that the on the issue before them in that election, those elections correctly reflected the sentiments of the majority of people in Syria. Prior to the 2014 elections, however, Syrian elections not nearly inclusive enough to have been any form of a reflection on actual Syrian political preferences. But while Jeanette may have too much trust in some of the sources she cites, and even though I would not go as far as she does when it comes to dismissing everything that is printed in the mainstream media in the US, let me compare the US with another country I know (Iran) on the relevant issues that I think we should look at in adjudging how democratic a country is:

1- Public's Exposure to Different Viewpoints through the Media
While the news media in Iran is far more restricted than the news media in the US in terms of what they can or cannot say, Iranians have access to a range of media from all over the world outside their own country given the peculiar circumstances that have made practically everyone in Iran who would have any inclination to watch the news to also have a satellite dish. There is also the internet, which has millions of subscribers. In this mix, there are are also several foreign broadcasters, including the VOA and BBC and others, that bring a different perspective to Iranians having their own Farsi or Persian language programs while there are dozens of Iranian channels broadcasting news from different angles in Persian operated by various emigre and other such groups from outside of Iran. Americans, on the other hand, while not denied the right to watch different viewpoints, just don't. As a result, while I would give the US media a (6) on a 10 point scale in terms of bringing different perspectives, and give the Iranian media a (3) on that same scale, in terms of overall exposure to different viewpoints, I would give the Americans at best the same (6) which would be a lower score than the Iranian people (7).
2- Ability to have preferences reflected in public policy
The Americans have a system that allows them a much better chance to have their preferences reflected into public policy, although there are a host of barriers and issues that make America still nothing like the country described in its civics classes. Nonetheless, here the US (7) would get a better score than Iran (4).
3- Elections representing the range of public opinion
In light of what I said above, and reading about the vetting of candidates by the Guardians Council in Iran, some might imagine that the US rates much better than Iran on this point. Not quite. The two party system and the candidates that emerge from this system are generally not reflective enough of the range of public opinion on issues in the US. On this point, the US (5) would at best get the same score as Iran (5).
4- Tolerance for opposing viewpoints
Iran is generally not all that severe in the way it enforces opinions that differ from the official line. Indeed, the people here are very eager and do constantly talk about politics and say things that are not all within the official script. In fact, half the conversation is dominated by criticisms of the regime and some rather loud and boisterous in the process. On this point, the image of Iran as a totalitarian like society is wrong and a lie. There are plenty of Iranians who openly say good things about the Shah, who criticize Iran's policies on any issue (e.g., Syria, Hezbollah, Israel) and who are even disdainful about the role of religion (although the one area that can get them in trouble is if they overtly say things that are deemed insulting to religious beliefs). While in the US you even have better legal protection to express any view you hold, in practice if you happen to be of certain backgrounds and beliefs (e.g., anti-Zionist, Muslim etc) you will have reason to worry expressing yourself freely. Overall, though, I would not give either country very poor marks on this scale, with the US (9) doing better than Iran (7).

 

In matter of terrorist acts yes ... but in matter of trial to take over control over country not ... but in too many countries they start it. Interesting when ISIS sentence captured Al Nusra (= Al Qaida members until July) with cutting off heads too, as well doing with captured Hezbollah members and doing so with real Al Qaida and Taliban members too or burning them alive to death as penalty to be no follower of them or being Shiite and not Sunni.

 

Only a short answer ... elections during civil war by a government which has not full control over the complete country are correct and serious?
Elections when no real opposition is vote able for the people or was anyone of the opposition of FSA cote able, when not being rated as criminal by Assad regime? Wake up and see truth which has nothing to do and is not packed and reversed in Pro- or Anti-West propaganda BS blabbering! Facts are facts and can't be changed this way ...

 

As the topic here was Syria my comments were on it.One need not abandon a war on ISIS and Islamic terrorism by getting out of Syria as it is a separate problem completely. The Syria clusterf@ck is extremely complicated by Russian intervention which makes ANY solution virtually impossible.

 

I will give the answer I think is proper. The answer is this: when you have an election, like the one in Syria, where you have around 11.5 million of 15.8 million eligible voters (counting Syrians in rebel held territory) participate in the elections despite open terrorist threats by the rebels the US supports that to do so would subject them to reprisals; when you have Syrians living in Lebanon (one of the few countries outside of Syria that allowed Syrian refugees to vote) flooding and waiting in long lines for hours until midnight to have the chance to express their view; when anyone who opposed Assad was allowed to stand in the election as long as they didn't support decisions on Syria being made through guns and violence; and when you have representatives of over 30 countries (including the 2 largest non-aligned 'democracies' in the world, namely India and Brazil) call the elections free and transparent; and when you have Assad win those elections with more than 70% of the vote; then those elections IMO give us a good clue of one thing at least: the majority of people in Syria DO NOT share the agenda of those who wish to bring Assad down by force. Of course, this isn't even a revelation: numerous western polls say the same thing.

 

Assad and Russia have been chums for a long time, that's why Obama doesn't like him and is sulking and pouting because Putin's in line for a cut of Syria's oil when things settle down.
Assad seems alright to me, here he is posing for selfies with his dishy wife in a Syrian christian church-

 

But you know that these observers were not allowed or given possibility to observe what they want?
But you know that any opposition politician in exile was excluded for becoming candidate
But you know that both other candidates - Hassan Abdullah al-Nuri and Maher Abd al-Hafiz Hadschar - are part of the Assad regime?
But you know that no oberservers could check and control the counting of votes?

 

the way i remember it the candidates in exile refused to participate at all if assad joined the election at the time
probably because most of them have no change at all eitherway which is reflected by the election in general, if people didnt want assad they could have voted for the other 2 or voted invalid/not show up that day either but they did vote which says plenty

and most non western countrys considered the election fair and valid including india and brazil

 

No, I don't listen to what those who chose not to send observers, who didn't have any interest in cooperating in making sure the people of Syria have the chance to have their say, and who were instead actively trying to prevent any elections which included Assad from taking place. I listened instead to those who actually observed the elections and

In any case, nothing has changed. Those who are on the side of "democracy" are insisting that they, not the Syrian people, get to first decide whether Assad can even run in the elections. Those who are supposedly against "democracy" in Syria have a simple demand instead: have the Syrian people make all these decisions in referendums and elections strictly monitored by the UN, with Assad and any opponent of Assad who agrees to abide by the choice the people of Syria make, allowed to stand in the elections.

 

Btw, I would be less tempted to literally puke about all this talk about 'democracy' and 'dictatorship' in Syria if, on the side of the table where these slogans are being abused, we didn't find such bastions of democracy as Saudi Arabia and Qatar! Or if we weren't talking about a civil war which has, on the side fighting against Assad, what the CIA itself cabled to Washington from the get go, groups dominated by Salafists and Al Queda.

 

Well, legitimacy is relative. Let's say he is the twice elected President who is supported by the majority of Syrians, and under whom they were satisfied with their lives, and a peace far greater than war. Furthermore, were it not for the Syrian rebels, who make up a small percentage of the population, and who are attempting to overthrow Assad by force, there would be no civil war or its attendant sufferings and no Russian involvement on behalf of the Syrian government. Syrian refugees aren't running from Assad or from the Russians as the media would suggest. They're running from the war which resulted from the Syrian rebels trying to overthrow the government. Everyone has their view. Mine is that were it not for the outside influence of the USA, Assad would have been able to defeat the rebels a long time ago and prevent this now grueling struggle and drawn out suffering.

 

.
.
In 2011 there were moderate elements to the protest movement in Syria. People wanted change. They did not like Assad much but, they hated the extremist Islamist's far more. They did not want an Islamic State.

The extremists quickly took over the protest movement - telling Christians to either join the protest movement or leave the country.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/c...om-anti-government-protestors-in-syria-50104/

When armed insurrection erupted, it was the extremists were in charge.

From Syrian Archbishop Jacques Behnan Hindo of Hassaké-Nisibi

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...ishop-criticises-us-for-siding-with-al-qaeda/

The civil war is a holy war/holy Jihad. As said to you previously the opposition forces are united in their desire to bring strict sharia theocracy to Syria.

Prior to things getting way out of control and the formation of ISIS so prior to the Obama admin having to make up the moderate rebel lie you could real news from western sources such as the NYT .

.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/w...reate-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3

This sentiment is echoed by US senators.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/virgin...ad-for-saving-the-lives-of-christians/5384338

Rand Paul on the CNN Sunday morning show "State of the Union"

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2...-my-son-into-that-mess-on-the-crisis-in-iraq/

The "moderate rebel" misinformation is simply to cover up the fact that Obama (in conjunction with Saud, Turkey and others) were arming extremist Islamist (Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, Islamic Front, ISIS .. and other Islamist groups of the same ilk)

 

The issue is not about free elections and it is not about whether or not Assad was a bad guy. Your comparison of Syria to Germany is full of holes.

Try and speak out against the Gov't in Saud or most other ME nations and see what happens to you? There was way more respect for individual rights and freedoms in Syria than in other ME nations such as Saud. Saud is a totalitarian nightmare where they still stone women for adultery and sharia police monitor everything. There is no freedom of religion in Saud (no non Muslim Churches allowed or freedom of religious expression). Women are treated as slaves/property. They have to get permission from a man to get an education.

Taliban, Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, ISIS, Islamic Front, Salafi, Boko Haram, Al Shabab all adhere to the same Saudi inspired Islamist Salafi militant extremism. They teach their children to hate Christians and Jews and export this extremist ideology all over the world.

This was not the case in Syria. Syria was a "Secular" nation. They did not have Sharia Law. Assad has Christian Generals in his army. There is alcohol and dancing in bars. Women wear skirts and proper bathing suits. There is freedom of Religion and Christian churches.

The rebel opposition are Islamists (want strict sharia/theocracy to be the law of the land/political system). They hate individual rights and freedoms/Liberty. They hate "Secularism".

The whole call to holy Jihad in Syria was on the basis of getting rid of "Secularism" (Authority of Gov't based on the people instead of theocracy)

Perhaps Syria was not as free as Germany but, it was is a whole lot more free than what the rebel opposition wants. The whole call to Jihad is on the basis of taking away the freedoms that Syrians enjoyed.

The "Moderates" - Muslim and otherwise- in Syria are the one's fighting for Assad.

 

I agree with most things here but I think you miss the problems the west is facing and you judge them too harshly for it, just from the ethical perspective if Assad survives as the leader of Syria it means democracy is not not the wonder cure after all and that might = right indeed, that's a big issue, then you have aftermath considerations and diffrent intersts or every "ally", the western politicians might say stupid things that seem futile but as a wise man once said "The appearance of the law must be upheld especially when it being broken", I think it wil work out between the powers, I dont think Assad will be overthrown but Syria might not be in one piece.

 

Well mine is the opposite, I think the rebels - FSA back then, would have won if Assad didnt call in Iran and Hizbi, once he did and the west did not support the FSA as it should - FSA collapsed as an entity and then they joined teh Jihadists.

But we both agree Assad and his supporters have no choice but fight now because those Jihadists cant be negotiated with.

 

Well I don't equate (on any level) the Rebels with the legal authority of Syria. I view the rebels as criminals, and the Assad government as the proper rule and authority. Consequently, Assad has every right to seek help from whomever he may to squash the criminal rebellion and keep the government and nation intact. And anyone who helps the rebellion is essentially helping a criminal enterprise and continuing the suffering of all Syrian citizens by extending the war rather than allowing its quick demise. By arming the rebels, the USA is partly responsible for that. And I have never heard from any supporter of the rebellion or for the overthrow of Assad, a satisfactory reason for it. It, the rebellion, is not the will of the Syrian majority, but of a minority of Syrians along with outside influences. This does not a Just war make. But a struggle for power at the expense of innocent Syrians.

 

We can't, though. This civil war is our baby. It wouldn't exist today had we not stepped in and armed and trained a bunch of people.

 

You really don't have a clue....do you? Here this may help you to filter thru.


Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy

In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.

Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

More than two years of violence have radicalized the armed opposition fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad, leaving few groups that both share the political vision of the United States and have the military might to push it forward.

Among the most extreme groups is the notorious Al Nusra Front, the Qaeda-aligned force declared a terrorist organization by the United States, but other groups share aspects of its Islamist ideology in varying degrees.

The Islamist character of the opposition reflects the main constituency of the rebellion, which has been led since its start by Syria’s Sunni Muslim majority, mostly in conservative, marginalized areas. The descent into brutal civil war has hardened sectarian differences, and the failure of more mainstream rebel groups to secure regular arms supplies has allowed Islamists to fill the void and win supporters.

The religious agenda of the combatants sets them apart from many civilian activists, protesters and aid workers who had hoped the uprising would create a civil, democratic Syria.

When the armed rebellion began, defectors from the government’s staunchly secular army formed the vanguard. The rebel movement has since grown to include fighters with a wide range of views, including Qaeda-aligned jihadis seeking to establish an Islamic emirate, political Islamists inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood and others who want an Islamic-influenced legal code like that found in many Arab states.

Another prominent group, Ahrar al-Sham, shares much of Nusra’s extremist ideology but is made up mostly of Syrians.....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/wo...anted=all&_r=0

 

Part 2 from the NY Times.


As extremists rose in the rebel ranks, the United States sought to limit their influence, first by designating Nusra a terrorist organization, and later by pushing for the formation of the Supreme Military Council, which is linked to the exile opposition group, the Syrian National Coalition.

Although led by an army defector, Gen. Salim Idris, the council has taken in the leaders of many overtly Islamist battalions. One called the Syrian Liberation Front has been integrated nearly wholesale into the council; many of its members coordinate closely with the Syrian Islamic Front, a group that includes the extremist Ahrar al-Sham, according to a recent report by Ms. O’Bagy, of the Institute for the Study of War.

In the past, United States officials saw the Islamist groups’ abundant resources as the main draw for recruits, said Steven Heydemann, a senior adviser at the United States Institute of Peace, which works with the State Department.

“The strategy is based on the current assessment that popular appeal of these groups is transactional, not ideological, and that opportunities exist to peel people away by providing alternative support and resources,” he said.

Mr. Heydemann acknowledged, however, that the current momentum toward radicalism could be hard to reverse.

We all want an Islamic state and we want Shariah to be applied,” said Maawiya Hassan Agha, a rebel activist reached by Skype in the northern village of Sarmeen. He said a country’s laws should flow from its people’s beliefs and compared Syrians calling for Islamic law with the French banning Muslim women from wearing face veils.....snip~

 

Yeah, and the UN has identified the problem.


UN Syria envoy: Jabhat al-Nusra holding Aleppo ‘hostage’

UN Syria Envoy Staffan de Mistura appealed directly to Jabhat al-Nusra, Syria’s al-Qaeda affiliate, on Oct. 6 to leave the city of Aleppo “because 1,000 of you are deciding the destiny of the 275,000 civilians.”

De Mistura offered to physically accompany the terrorists out of the city in order to alleviate the suffering of Aleppo’s besieged citizens, while calling on the Syrian and Russian governments to end the siege of the city “for the sake of eliminating 1,000 al-Nusra fighters.”

Jabhat al-Nusra, which broke from al-Qaeda and rebranded itself as Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (Conquest of Syria Front) in July, is designated as a terrorist organization by both the United States and the United Nations. Russia claimed that a reason for the collapse of the US-Russia agreement last month was the inability of the United States and its regional allies to separate American-backed Syrian opposition forces from Jabhat al-Nusra. The US-Russia agreement in Syria would have facilitated US and Russian military and intelligence coordination against Jabhat al-Nusra, in addition to allowing for humanitarian assistance and a resumption of UN-backed peace talks.


Jabhat al-Nusra’s role in Aleppo has been overshadowed, or left out, in most mainstream press accounts of the brutality of the Russian and Syrian siege of the city. On Oct. 7, Kerry said, “Russia and the [Syrian] regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women” and called for an “investigation of war crimes.” During the vice presidential debate Oct. 4, both Democratic Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine and Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Pence called for the establishment of humanitarian or safe zones in response to the siege.

The understandable impulse to assist those Syrians who have suffered immeasurably, and too long, as a result of this awful war is heartfelt and laudable. For US policymakers, there is also the need to weigh the consequences of any military action, including reflection of what was learned from American interventions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, and that even the establishment of humanitarian or safe zones would entail a “major combat mission,” in the words of US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter in May 2015, and therefore a “difficult thing to contemplate.”.....snip~


Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...envoy-nusra-aleppo-hostage.html#ixzz4MocjeGRP

Guess who has been hiding out in schools and hospitals. Using the Syrian Civilians as cover.