UN peace envoy to Syria Brahimi is giving a live press conference now, and in a question to specifically address the people of Syria, he said they are nowhere. He also said that Assad should change his mind about offering zero concessions (I agree). I don't think this will be sorted out via talks, because the terrorists want the country for themselves. Even if they were to get a new government, a moderate one even, why on Earth would the terrorists just accept that and lay down their arms? We need action. Why not destroy AQ in Syria? The US just confirmed last week that Syria was a magnet for terrorists and that it was AQ's strongest presence in the world. So why are they not being destroyed there? THAT is where they are doing the killing. NOTHING short of genocide, including against Kurds and Christians et. al. So for anyone who actually believes in this "war on terror" narrative used to justify bombardments in other countries, torture, hundreds of millions of violations of the fourth amendment, etc. can you answer this question: Why won't USA attack AQ in Syria? Instead, they let weapons flow in there where anyone knows AQ can get them (they have, actually, and that's proven that they got their hands on some of these weapons when they defeated the moderates in a battle). Talks won't solve this problem. This is a live press conference, I'll try to get a link or transcript as soon as possible.
The US only want peace on their terms which is why they are ambivalent to the kinds of AQ thugs they have historically supported. They are hedging their bets that these thugs, through a war of attrition, oust Assad with the aim of usurping them. The Western media has disingenuously presented the events in Syria as part of the broader Arab pro-democracy protest movement, spreading spontaneously from Tunisia, to Egypt, and from Libya to Syria. However, from the moment it became clear that initial outbreak of violence on March 17, 2011 was not the work of demonstrators, as the media had claimed, but rather terrorists involved in premeditated acts of killing and arson, it was clear that something else was going on. As Professor Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa put it: "Since the Soviet-Afghan war, Western intelligence agencies as well as Israel's Mossad have consistently used various Islamic terrorist organizations as "intelligence assets". Both Washington and its indefectible British ally have provided covert support to "Islamic terrorists" in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya, etc. as a means to triggering ethnic strife, sectarian violence and political instability The ultimate objective of the Syria protest movement, through media lies and fabrications, is to create divisions within Syrian society as well as justify an eventual "humanitarian intervention". http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-...for-a-us-nato-humanitarian-intervention/24591 In other words, from the outset - as was the case with Libya and Iraq before it - the plan in Syria is regime change. This also explains why the United States' premier regional bulldog, Israel, has been happy to take an overt back seat, content to observe from the sidelines in the hope that the warring factions in Syria effectively do the dirty work for them on their behalf. Remember, Israel was relatively content with the situation as was, namely, a regional strongman in the form of Assad in place who wasn't rocking the boat too much by way of the Golan. However, extreme Zionist elements with both Israel and the United States became impatient with the status-quo which is why principally the latter fomented the instability in Syria which has led to the current escalations in violence we are witnessing at present. What is currently happening in Geneva is a deliberately contrived sham to give the false impression to the world's people that the West is serious about wanting to find an equitable political solution to the violence. This can be observed in the highly ambiguous nature of the Geneva Communique itself which the government of Syria never subscribed to. It plainly advocates a power sharing executive formed by some of the current government plus the opposition to oversee a transition to democracy. But it does not state which elements of the current government, and it does not mention which elements of the opposition, nor does it make plain if President Assad himself is eligible to be part of, or to head, the power-sharing executive, and whether he is eligible to be a candidate in future democratic elections. But more importantly, as former UK diplomat, Craig Murray points out: "The really farcical thing about the Geneva conference is that it is attempting to promote into power-sharing in Syria 'opposition' members who have no democratic credentials and represent a scarcely significant portion of those actually fighting the Assad regime in Syria. What the West are trying to achieve is what the CIA and Mossad have now achieved in Egypt; replacing the head of the Mubarak regime while keeping all its power structures in place. The West dont really want democracy in Syria, they just want a less pro-Russian leader of the power structures." http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/01/syria-and-diplomacy/ It's the last sentence which explains more than anything else the true underlying motivations of the United States and its allies.
That's a thoughtful post. My question is, let's say they get their transitional government.. What do AQ do? What about the new Alqaedastan safe-haven they hold in North Syria? Do they give that back? Drop their weapons? We're all holding hands and singing under the rainbow? Or do we say, "okay, now Assad is gone. NOW we'll start fighting AQ?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...a45a0a-8a8c-11e3-a760-a86415d0944d_story.html That's the story for the thread. If you click the link, you can see Brahimi trying to do the "rubber pencil" and being very amused by it.
Well they're already fighting them now, so I don't see why they won't if they get their transitional government.
Right now it's basically a triangular war.. So once Assad goes, that's one less military that's fighting AQ. Do you suppose the fledgeling transitional government will be able to defeat AQ? Even now they can't.
It will take time to defeat them. But since Syria is mostly Sunni, it won't be like Iraq, where the Sunni minority feels underrepresented and allows Al Qaeda a foothold in their towns. It would be in the population's interest to stop Al Qaeda; indeed, most of its members are not even Syrian.
You want the USA to take out Assad? Just wait for it... Assad has until 30 of June, 2014 to surrender his Chemical weapons. If he doesn't, and it looks like those talks are stalled too, all hell is going to break loose. And, probably, the USA is going to war with Syria. I hate war and I'm not happy about this direction of events, but Assad has ONE job, one job, to prevent this action, turn over his chemical weapons stockpile, and he's failing at it. US 'concern' at Syria chemical weapons delay
Those are very good points. I think parallels can be made here with whats happening now in Iraq. In a sense, the growing resurgence of AQ has become somewhat of an unfortunate unintended consequence of highly unpredictable circumstances. I think historically they have been regarded as a useful power vacuum filler as far as the American's are concerned. I tend to think, however, that the latter may have bitten off more than they can chew in the sense that the relatively controllable Frankenstein monster has spawned more monsters that have become increasingly UNCONTROLLABLE. As I intimated above, "Syria" can be now read "Iraq". Remember, prior to the US-led invasion of 2003, AQ was an unknown quantity in Iraq. Since that time, and urged on by the events in Syria, it's tentacles have spread. This doesn't bode well, not only for Iraq and Syria, but for the region, and indeed the wider world, more generally. The idea that the liberal and social democracies' of the West are somehow able to insulate themselves from these thugs given the increasingly globalized and interconnected nature of our world, is an illusion. We are not immune from what's happening in Syria and Iraq. We have opened up a pandora's box. Already we are talking about the displacement of six million Syrian's and four million Iraqi's. Many of these people will end up in the US and Europe. Despite all the precautions in place, there can never be any guarantee that a large percentage of these migrants will not be the kind of radical AQ-type elements we claim to be fighting. As I've said before on this board, US foreign policy is calibrated on the basis of what successive US governments' regard as long-term cost-benefit in terms of sustaining potential collateral damage. For the government, civilian deaths on US soil resulting from terrorism are seen in policy terms as a price worth paying, so long as wider geopolitical and economic strategic objectives are deemed to have been met. In fact, the impacts resulting from 'blow-back' is regarded as an important strategic objective in meeting those aims.
