Russian General: Why Assad can't win the war in Syria

Globalresearch? Fascicle. Anyway it refers to the time article below so its not stating anything of its own.

Also pretty unsubstantiated. It refers to a two page document which only Time journalists have seen which means they could write anything they want to.
It does not state whether this "election monitoring" group proposal was actually implemented. If anything it seems to indicate that it wasn't executed.
I should also point out that it would have been a complete waste of time courtesy of the Syrian constitution.

The only source with a little bit of truth but so what? With that logic Russia is trying to destabilise the USA with RT.

 

I have said all I really needed to say on the subject and even more than I needed to. I am not on a crusade to change anyone's views. I am confident in my account on these issues, but others can give there's and believe what they wish. But I think its time to change the subject and move to areas where there is enough of a common ground for a discussion!

 

Yet your actions seem to belie that statement

Which appears to be flawed.

The only thing I've said is that ISIS gets a small amount of money from private donors which you haven't contested.

It is relevant to the topic as IS are in Syria and do constitute one of the many militias that are in Syria fighting each other and the government.

 

I wasn't going to bother, but when someone has the audacity to call the work of an award winning investigative journalist "rubbish" and does so without even making clear what part of the report (almost all of it well substantiated) is being called into question, I felt it was only fair to post other sources and material that verified and supported what Seymour Hersh had written.

The issues are relevant, but our world views are too apart for the conversation to be productive.

 

Interesting article.

Not surprising, though. The ineffectiveness of the SAA has been apparent. An ineffective army can almost always be laid to a lack of good leadership, poor morale, little will to fight, poor training, poor supply and quality of weapons, poor support systems, financial bankruptcy, and lack of provisions. In the case of the SAA, they suffer from not one, but all of these deficiencies.

The situation as laid out by this Russian military man has the ring of truth to it.

I think Assad, the Russians, and Iran, and all their various allied militias should realize that there will be no victory here. I think they should realize that Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back together again. I think it is time to be talking about redrawing the borders. It would seem to me that the goal of a peaceful, unified Syria with its traditional borders under the governance of a popularly supported central government is just out of reach at this point.

I think the Alawites, Sunnis, and Kurds would be better off just governing themselves in their own sovereign areas. To achieve this, many problems would have to be overcome. But the alternative is endless war and destruction. If I were a Syrian of any of these groups, I would prefer sovereignty for my people, peace, and rebuilding for the future over death and misery and destruction with no end in sight.

My two cents ....

 

I would rather say that "your beloved former allies" than "my" beloved muslims.
Those same weapons that were used in Paris the west armed the Muslims in BiH with.

 

Then you should have asked. I also find this sentence quite audacious too as well as juvenile "I am confident I know more about the subject than you do,following the issues closely and carefully." and presumptuous, arrogant and pompous.
I should also point out that just because someone wins an award doesn't mean that they are competent. I also have to wonder whether he wrote by himself considering the amount of grammatical errors that are present.

Who?

Which ones? The article doesn't state.

Again which ones?

Who are these officials?

Same problem.

And again

The first time an interviewee actually has an identity in this article and its not specific as to which government he is referring to. On top of that the CFR isn't a governmental body but a private organisation.

The rest of the article is full of these anomalies.

You honestly believe that those sources are credible? Despite the fact I've already shown where they're not factual.

So what are my world views?

 

Of course, he won't.
The author of the article is a quite well known journalist Mikhail Khodarenok. He works as journalist for about 15 year, earlier he was a military, served in General Staff. Sometimes he writes very controversial things.

 

I can agree with you on that. I believe Washington started pushing for a regime change around 2006, and money was being being thrown into Syria by the CIA and Soros' NGO's. Like Ukraine, the people were deceived into protesting for more rights, not knowing they were being manipulated for the benefit of foreign powers who could care less for their country.

The bullets that killed the police and the protesters at Maidan and that was blamed on the Yanukovich, came from the same gun and from a building the Right Sector was in. I don't doubt it was the same thing in Syria so as to blame Assad... which they did of course.

 

May 2002... Bush named Syria as part of the Axis of Evil.

Syria has a long well deserved reputation for drug smuggling.. with the Alawites completely immune from prosecution.

 

For those who believe Syria should be split up ...

Years ago the British Empire realized the best way to keep its control over nations once they attained their freedom was to split them up by ethnicity and/or religion. This way they would always be at odds with one another.

If it was not possible to do that... like in the Arab world, then they tried to keep some nations economically better off than the others, that way they wouldn't want to unite. This is the reason some Arab nations are fabulously wealthy, while others are poor.

They didn't do it only in that part of the world. As an example, to keep Northern Ireland separated from the South they gave them better trade deals. They did this with Cyprus as well, so that it wouldn't want to unite with Greece.

Ever since Assad became president, the different ethnic groups and faiths in Syria were united ...and content. They liked their secular society the way it was and they showed it by voting overwhelmingly for Assad... Washington though didn't like it and so it's been arming the foreign terrorists sent in by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia and using propaganda to deceive the world into thinking that Syria should be split up. Basically they are following Britain's policy.

 

You're wrong! Bush's axis of evil was Iran, Iraq and N. Korea. Also you're making statements without any definite proof ...and if we take all the lies that Washington's ministers of propaganda have been caught in, it's doubtful that there is any truth in anything that is being said about Assad.

 

How easy it is to brainwash those who want to be brainwashed?

 

I know a bit about journalists and can confidently assert that even the most (ostensibly?) impartial ones have their own agendas; and not every one of them are necessarily all-knowing . . . on the contrary I've known some who are even naive.

 

All human activities are fraught with bias, corruption, self-interest, failings, human ego and the like.

With respect to Western media reports, my own view is as follows: there are media organizations and journalists who can be ignored a priori because they are openly pushing an agenda and have been shown in the past to be propagandists not journalists. Others, while certainly carrying their own implicit biases and agendas, nonetheless are less likely to engage in outright lies and to the extent they are also pushing their agenda and propaganda, they at least try to do so using a base of facts as opposed to fantasy and fiction.

To be sure, we all have our own preconceptions and our world view and that will color which media, journalists, and reports we find credible, not so credible and the like. The reports I have posted, including from Seymour Hersh regarding the Redirection, are ones that I believe are credible and fit what I believe to be the case not just from other sources but following the events at issue closely as they involved my country, Iran.

 

And irrespective of their own perspectives, some journalists have to take into account the biases of their employers, who in turn, and in all probability, are themselves supporters or detractors of a given government stance.

My compliments on your insightfulness.

 

Perhaps the gap between us lies in these so called "elections", I dont trust elections in despotic regiems throu histroy it always been a tool for dictators but to hold elections in a dictatorship under civil war when Millions have fled or killed is simply morbid, it's a mockery of the dead and I dont accept it.

No one told these ppl to fight, you can send "agents" to Israel to try and start a civil war and it wont work, they fight for their own reasons.

 

1) The Syrian elections had observers from a host of different countries. While those elections don't show Syria to be a "democracy", the results clearly showed one thing: most Syrians prefer Assad over those who are fighting him. That is because there was no compulsion for them to vote and yet voter participation was very high (11+ million voting from a total of 15 million eligible voters counting even Syrians living in rebel held territory), and no one has been able to question that the results accurately reflected the votes cast.

Given that the anti-Assad organizations had called for a boycott, and indeed were the only ones doing anything to forcibly interfere with the right of the Syrian people to decide whether they wanted to participate or not, everyone voting knew that a vote for Assad meant just that, while those who really didn't want Assad could have either boycotted the vote altogether or voted for one of his opponents (regardless of how lame those opponents might have been).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2014

2) Every society will include people or groups who are dissatisfied with the existing order. In some societies, the number of people dissatisfied might be the majority or the overwhelming majority, while in others it could be a small minority. How successful you are in stirring up these groups to rise against an existing order depends on a host of factors, including who is trying to do the stirring and what they are offering and what they are capable of offering?

In the case of Syria, many Syrian military officers and ex officers were simply bribed by the combination of Saudi/Qatari money, a safe haven in Turkey, and the promises of being backed by the world's only 'superpower', the US and the belief that Assad would be the loser in the confrontation being staged against him with the array of states (the US, EU, Arab League) all lined up to see him go. With those officers, you also had a good many soldiers as well. You then had groups who were Islamist and who opposed Assad because he was a secular leader. These groups got their funding and support directly or indirectly from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, with the US nodding along. You also had a small, so-called democratic, opposition, which the US actively supported and courted. Given that the combination and outside meddling, with a safe haven across the Turkish border and a lot of funds and revenue pouring in, and with many believing that Assad's days under the circumstances must be over, it is not surprising that an uprising and a civil war could be staged.

 

As seen - It is NOT a Civil War - It is a US & PROXY Supported & Paid For mercenary Invasion
conducted by paid for Fundamentalist Crazies who like eating the Hearts out to the corpses they create
..................................................................................................... & chopping the heads off of Children



But these solid FACTS are not good enough for your average poor American Ovine with Bleach washed Brain

 

Ahem ! - So does the CIA

 

It most certainly is a civil war that broke out because Assad was shooting pro-democracy protesters in Feb 2011.

- - - Updated - - -

Not like Syria....... Syria hasn't won any armed conflict since 1947 and they have experienced MANY military coups and government massacres.

 

CIA Admits to Congress the Agency Uses Mainstream Media to Distribute Disinformation
http://www.globalresearch.ca/1975-v...am-media-to-distribute-disinformation/5424860

Top German Journalist: “We All Lie for the CIA” – Mainstream Media is Completely Fake
http://thewashingtonstandard.com/top-german-journalist-lie-cia-mainstream-media-completely-fake/

OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD: HOW THE CIA CONTROLS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA
http://www.thetruthhunter.com/operation-mockingbird-how-the-cia-controls-the-mainstream-media/


So when it comes to arrogantly strutting around,
throwing around the charge of others being easily
..........................................................Brainwashed,



I suggest you put on that nice new suit the CIA has measured you for,
and go to the Mirror and introduce yourself to the guy in there who has
.................................................................. ALL his JUNK hanging out

.