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

Could that be the same sort of Civil War & shooting of Protestors, that was conducted by
....................................... the bought & paid for CIA Hit Squads in Libya & the Ukraine etc ?


General Wesley Clark:
Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years Including Syria
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
[video=youtube;9RC1Mepk_Sw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw[/video]

What better way for the US
to accomplish its clearly stated aims than to create Chaos as was done in the Ukraine ?

False Flag? The Kiev Maidan Snipers, They Fired On Both Police and Protesters
http://www.globalresearch.ca/false-flag-the-kiev-maidan-snipers-they-fired-on-both-sides/5434179



Syria was MARKED for US induced regime change & turmoil back in 2007
That it didn't occur until 2011 only proves they screwed up so bad blowing Iraq
................ back into the stone age that they set their own time table back a bit

.

.

 

Actually, the story is a bit more nuanced. While the ultimate plans of the neocons, and their Project for a New American Century, did involve regime change, chaos, and war for the entire region, in the short run the US plan in 2007 was to create an opposition to gain leverage in negotiations with Assad to force him to shift his alliances and move away from Iran. It was only when, despite several round of such negotiations (involving various states to act as intermediaries. e.g., the Turks, the French, the Russians even), these negotiations failed to produce the desired result, did the US then decide to totally go after regime change and have Assad ousted.

I can find the accounts with the sources and details with respect to the various negotiations and the offers made to Assad if necessary, but the succinct and largely accurate summary of it all was given in a report I posted in this thread a few pages back:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffre...b_9231190.html

 

Everything changes.



Now the representatives of Saudis go to pay homage to Putin ..... And Obama in Saudi Arabia was given a cool reception. Contrary to protocol, the King of Saudi Arabia, as did other members of the ruling royal family of the Kingdom, to meet Obama at the airport did not arrived.

About Chinese I will not even talk.

 

Absolute rubbish is your nonsense naked claims backed up with nothing.

 

Please try and use proper sentences.
If you want to know my sources then all you have to do is ask; preferably without being rude.

 

Wadduh Yah mean Rubbish !- his Crap is backed up by the CIA
Kind of like a Toilet in Eclipse - hard to separate what's in the bowl & what's on the floor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

 

Assad cannot win this war, but neither can the Rebels. I think a partition of Syria is coming I believe it will mean a semi independent Kurdistan.

 

I find that a difficult statement to take seriously because I haven't listed my sources. So either you haven't actually read what I've written or you're lying.
Also if you have anything to say about my opinions then you can say it to me.

Dubious.

 

Please ... do give sources which show that only 5% of ISIS funding comes from outside sources.

Funny that you use the term "absolute rubbish" when referring to a source (and a good source at that) but complain when others use that term for your unsubstantiated and meritless claims. You do not even bother to state one thing that you think was meritless.

 

Your links are good but, they had nothing to do with what my post was referring to.

 

One thing that I think would be good to bear in mind is that the real issue isn't the funding of ISIS after it took over territory, started collecting 'taxes' and operating oil fields and the like, but who funded and armed thousands of men, and put them in a position to be able to run over much of Iraq and Syria in the beginning before they were able to become a bit more self-sufficient?

 

Maybe once you've decided to stop falsely accusing me of whatever you reason that you arbitrarily produce.

So far you're the only one other than myself that has used that term and I haven't objected to its use.

Actually I did and in depth as well if you had bothered to read my posts.

 

I read your initial post and your post to myself. If there are others you think I should read then do give the post #'s and I will do so.

 

You can go and find it yourself.
Maybe when you exercise a bit of respect then I might oblige you.

 

.

Well then List them then -
My point is that no matter what your "sources", you will find it impossible to remove the Stain
of the CIA from them - To many of the CIA's bloody prints smeared on to many Bloody corpses
NOBODY of a fair & clear mind believe you people anymore

SO No matter what the Sign is on the Store Front of your - quote "sources" endquote
You can be sure that any claim that only 5% of IS funding is coming from outside sources
Is a claim manufactured in CIA Propaganda Mills - it's the CIA _ That is their Job for
........................................................................................................... Christ's Sake ! -


SO Simply kick over the rock and there the Cockroaches will be - GUARANTEED !



These are the kind of guys that eat the Hearts out of corpses & decapitate children - Nice company you keep



In case you have not noticed - & you certainly don't seem to have. The CIA & US Foreign Policy have
lost ALL credibility. Except of course in the Puppet circles of the Brainwashed shillls & talking heads
....................................................................... who insist upon sucking on the straw of their "sources"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISIS, Al Qaeda And The CIA: The Documented Connection
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...-state-iraq-and-now-documented-cia-connection

The Truth Emerges: How The US Fuelled The Rise Of ISIS In Styria & Iraq
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

Ex CIA Agent Comes Clean On Syria: Obama Allowed For The Creation Of ISIS
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/04...-on-syria-obama-allowed-creation-of-isis.html

Direct and Indirect Backing for Islamic State
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/an...-Backing-for-Islamic-State-20140818-0052.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
-

BTW I will express my Opinions to whom & how I see fit
a nd before you so carelessly throw out the charge of lying - best check with that guy in the mirror, who's Junk is hanging out

.
.

 

Unfortunately I think we have moved past that as it seems that simply offering a differing point of view is enough to offend you and several others. I will not oblige rude people.

That's extremely unlikely

That's funny I was going to say the same thing about you.

Really? So I buy my sources do I? In which I think that you would be only too happy to tell what they are.

Now that is an extremely absurd statement

And how exactly would you know that?

So which of the three in the picture have committed those acts?

?

?

So now you're accusing me of being dishonest and doing so on the instruction of [insert group]. Well that's ok as you can do as much of that as you want but I reserve the right to do likewise.

I also reserve the right to call you as I see fit.

I won't because there is no reason to do so and the evidence continues to be compelling.
You are a liar. A big fat liar

You?! No. No thank you.

You know you really are quite emotional.

.

 

Pretty much nothing in his other posts, which I invite you to read, offer any insight as to which part of the report he finds lacking in merit. Instead, he basically quotes passages which rely on officials who are offering information in background (who don't want their name revealed) and imagines he has discovered some unprecedented style of reporting! In another case, which dealt with a report by TIME magazine regarding a classified document which 2 TIME magazine correspondents had seen outlining covert US plans to destabilize Assad, his response is basically that the report can't be trusted because we have not seen the classified document ourselves.

In this regard, let me state the following before I move on since I don't think there is much to be gained from the give and take with him anyway:

A report in an American publication about a policy either (a) repeats the covert, official, authorized, line, or (b) will, if the report intends to reveal a covert policy, rely in part on sources who give information on background. Ultimately, when one reads such reports, the issue of whether they appear credible or not will depend in part on the reputation and credibility of the publication and journalist as well as on the overall context of the report and the facts and circumstances which would tend to support or detract from what is being reported. The fundamental points which Seymour Hersh made in the Redirection have since been verified by many other sources, as well as by events which have shown these policies being implemented, and ultimately withstand even 20/20 hindsight.

 

You're being paradoxical. You say that I haven't stated which part of the Hersh article is "lacking in merit" which I have and you've even stated it the above paragraph.

Where did I say that?

Fine show me the plans

That doesn't even make sense

I'm pretty sure that they haven't.

Its funny I've got one guy here who says I'm ignorant because I'm reading CIA stories and then I've got you telling me that I'm ignorant because I choose to question news stories.

Which is complete insanity.

 

You ask me to read your post and then tell me "go find it". What is there to respect in that ?

 

I am shocked on almost a daily basis at how pervasive the propaganda machine is in this country. I have been aware of the political economy of the mass media for 30 years but, over the last decade and a half things have been way over the top.

That the establishment can arm and fund Al Qaeda/Al Nusra in Syria and get away with it is a truly amazing feat of information control.

- - - Updated - - -

You really need to get some material.

 

I have a perspective regarding the media in the US that is informed, on the one hand, by my background as a lawyer who practiced in the US and has some appreciation of 1st amendment rights, and on the other hand, by the fact that I am Iranian and now live in Iran and know for a fact that the image and coverage regarding Iran in the Western media is grotesquely misleading and often appears intentionally inaccurate. In trying to reconcile the reality of a media that badly misinforms the American people on a variety of subjects, particularly relating to issues in the Middle East, my own views can be summarized as follows:

1- The nature of reporting in the US is such that reporters take their headlines from press briefings by the US government and its various organs and officials and then simply relay the message to the wider public. In this process, if what they are reporting is an issue that is in contention between the 2 major political parties, you will get the two sides represented by the 2 parties more or less reflected in the reporting. But if the lies and propaganda by the US government involves an agenda which is more or less common to both parties, there is little incentive or oversight to counter the official government line.
2- The media are composed of individuals who carry the kind of biases that exist and are shown even among those who are not paid to express their views, such as many of the posters here. In the case of Iran, which has a regime that is stridently anti-American, anti-Israeli, and yet is also a 'Muslim theocracy', those biases spread to even some organs in the left which might otherwise share Iran's anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist, agenda but are turned off by the religious nature of its state.
3- The major media organizations in the US are essentially part of the establishment, influenced by the same kind of lobbies and special interest groups which have an inordinate influence on US policies in general, and with respect to the pro Israeli lobby, on US policies regarding the Middle East in particular.
4- In light of the above, there is little incentive and very few career building avenues, for a reporter to take on the establishment and try to present a picture that neither of the 2 major parties subscribe or wish to promote. This is particularly true with regard to coverage of issues in the Middle East, where the pro Israeli lobby is actually quite aggressive in trying to silence anyone who veers too far afield from the orthodoxy that is being preached.
5- The biases built into the American public mind through the media create a strong barrier to alternative media being able to successfully challenge the mainstream media in their reporting. But, in addition, it is also true that the alternative media voices in the US sometimes seem to go a bit too off course, with certain poorly substantiated reports or analysis, and begin to lose credibility in the process.

In any case, even with these biases inherent in the way issues are reported in the US, I have to admit that there are still reporters and reports which try to give a more accurate picture of things, including reports that do appear even somewhat regularly in the 'mainstream media'. But the problem is that these reports - as opposed to the less in depth headline type reports -- are often read only by a very narrow audience who takes the time and energy to try to be genuinely informed, with the rest of the public -- and many who even rise to positions of power and influence -- simply learning what amounts to essentially the propaganda that emerges from the typical reports and headlines which dominate the coverage in the US media.

 

Speaking for myself, I am offended as much at your refusal to engage in standard debate
as I am by your inept attempts to defend the indefensible, that you define as "a point of view"


So cut with the weak wristed tête-à-tête - Loose one liners - They only clutter the debate.
Like bits of litter blowing around in a Vacant Lot, they hardly make for effective rebuttal

A lame attempt to duck & dodge the Fact of your refusal to engage us with your -"sources"
......... because we are "Rude" people, hardly makes for an effective & cogent argument

In case you haven't noticed - The PF Forum is a Forum of International OPEN Debate.
& the debate here is bound to get Hot, contentious & personal, especially when we have
some people attempting to defend policies that result in untold Suffering & Death

So like they say: - "If you can't take the Heat, get to Hell out of the Kitchen"

I heartily concur - This character has got to "put up, or shut up"

.

 

No good,

Those that supported him as a ruler gave the numbers and nominated him, it's not a free election, its funny to suggest a dictator that wouldnt step down, refused compremise or elections when the mess started - would hold fair elections when all hell broke loose, still an insult to one's intelligence.

Dissatisfied civilians dont shoot their own army or bomb civilians, only ppl that dont see themsleves as part of that country will do that, ppl that already saw the soldiers as occupiers and enemies.
Question is why would they ? probebly for same reasons ppl rise up against dictators around the world.

Money ? is that all it takes to turn soldier against soldier ? loyal citizens to traitors that will kiil their own neigbors ?

How much you think it will take to get me join Hamas and plant bombs in Israeli busses ?

 

If it was that simple as a mercenary invasion the Syrians would hav ewiped them off in a few months, your simple story doesnt fit the mass desertions from Assad army, the fightings in urban areas against civilians, the fact Assad keeps gaining and loosing ground, the Millions of refugees and that Assad himself needed mercenary troops to fight.

The only fact that does explain this is it IS a CIVIL WAR and Assad fights his own ppl, that's why his troops will gain and lose territories and that's why he needs Iran and Lebanon trrops, that's why so many Syrians fled.

 

No arguments from me, that's why the US bombs them now otherwise it would'nt be there, note Obama had his red line crossed - even if it was all a setup - and didnt do anything about it.