So what's up with Syria?

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:44 am

OK, so wikileaks has shown us that this whole civil war thing in Syria got started with NATO, funding, providing arms, and training terrorists to assassinate important people and cause general mayhem. Funnily enough by sneaking arms and people over the border from Iraq.

Sound familiar? It's like the official story, only completely the opposite of that. Also a good read on what went down in Libya and why they can't get the security council to play the same game this time (fool me once, bla bla bla).

But why? What's the problem with Bashir that the US, France, and Britain (at the least) are all so keen to replace him with a more militant puppet? That whole backing Lebanon against Israel thing? Him being like 99% of the planet and not liking the occupation of Mesopotamia? He keeps talking about government reforms, but no one will translate for me without crazy editorialising. I can only guess he's going to tax the wrong company like that silly Australian PM the CIA rolled.

Psst: turns out the Aussie union bosses are tools of the CIA, to give them functional control of both parties. That's awesome. Go wikileaks.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:34 pm

Whenever I look at geo-politics, I always try and see the multiple reasons why a great power makes its decisions. For instance, when the US went into Iraq the US had a lot of plausible reasons. The obvious one is oil, I wonder how much that one actually came into play, Attacking Iraq served the neocon agenda of eliminating an antagonizing regimes to Israel. It also allowed the US to set up bases on the western border of Iran. It also made the lobbiests for the military industrial complex, Haliburton in particular, pretty happy. That's just a few of the reasons they had for going in.

I would expect there to be a lot of reasons why NATO is exacerbating the tensions in Syria. Syria provides Russia with its only Mediterranean naval base, so is considered a strong ally of Russia. This is why they can't get anything through the UN, the Russians have a security council veto. It is also why we haven't seen air strikes yet, the Russians have unloaded some very new SAMs in Syria and the US doesn't want to expose itself to casualties. In addition to all that, there is the neocon agenda rearing up again of destabilizing any regime not friendly to Israel. I don't believe Syria has privatized its natural resources to the foreign multi-nationals, so I bet a few of them would like to get in on the action. There are also several pipelines going through Syria, I believe two criss-cross in Homs actually. These reasons are probably just the tip of tip of the iceberg, there are probably scores of others.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:29 pm

Thanks Juton. I went reading 'round the various quasi-insider people hidden away in my bookmarks (ex-diplomat Craig Murray is always blunt), and the trend seems to be that ...

United States Über Alles. Which is to say, the people who decide these things are determined that there be only two kinds of countries in the world, those who do as they are damn well told, and those burning in hell because they did not.

Why Syria? Because they were next. Yes, it's about oil, and graft, corruption, strategic control of this and that, painted in freedom&democracy inc. colours, but the real reason is they were next. Tactics have had to change since that whole Iraq debacle, but the target list hasn't. Which is sad, because I keep expecting something more, you know, worthy of an RPG session than "We are #1!"

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:55 pm

Syria is a problem though. China and Russia both have vested interest in keeping a government there that's friendly towards them. Russia has it's only Med naval base, Russia also sells millions of dollars worth of arms a year to Syria. A military war in Syria means NATO troops going up against fairly modern Russian equipment. I'm actually pretty sure NOONE wants to see that happen. The Russians don't really want their equipment tested. NATO doesn't want to risk the losses.

Homs is a nightmare though. 3 reporters killed, fairly indiscriminate shelling. Children dying on a scale even higher than Gaza. Maybe NATO is 'feeding terrorists' /maybe/ but the Syrian army response is causing their own people to switch sides.

It's all hypocritical shit. Bahrain and Yemen came down harder on their protesters, and got that shit squared away, and we didn't say shit because they are /our/ allies.

Bombing your own civilian pop centers should make /everyone/ upset, no matter who does it. So yes, the neocons want to get into Syria. But that doesn't mean the Syrian Government isn't fucked up as well.

Honestly, what the US needs is for gas to hit $10+ a gallon. Until that happens, the average American won't be pissed off enough to agree to get off the petroleum teet.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:49 pm

The problem with reports from or about Homs is that they either come from the insurgents or big media reporters. I don't really trust anything the insurgents say without some type of independent verification, and most of the reporters there are beholden to the same media that is beholden to Western corporate and political interests. Is it plausible that the Syrian army is killing civilians? Yes, but are those deaths intentional or 'collateral damage' and how many of those deaths are being caused by the insurgents?

What's going on in Syria right now is probably one of those situations where both sides are the bad guys. I say probably because I can't really trust any of the information I'm being given about what's going on over there.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:16 am

Homs clearly has nothing on Fallujah, which the satellite photos showed completely levelled by artillery and bombing, where the US shot up ambulances, killed paramedics, and bombed the fucking hospital while supposedly targetting "insurgents". There were SEVENTY EIGHT journalists killed in Iraq in 2006 alone, mostly by the US.

It's not hypocrisy, it's propaganda.

Bombing your own civilian pop centers should make /everyone/ upset

Bombing. Period. Should make everyone upset, but only really upsets those near the target who almost got bombed. People are shallow like that.

But this US journalist school thing where killing other people's civilians is "collateral damage" and killing your own is "oh, noes, the sky is falling", that's just bullshit. People is people.

the average American

voted for George W. Bush, twice, the second time because he started a few wars and killed hundreds of thousands of other countries' innocent civilians.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:33 pm

I think your tinfoil hat is on a bit tight

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:04 am

Yeh, because bombing "should make /everyone/ upset" unless it's the US dropping them on hospitals, water treatment plants, and schools, then it's a fucking smiley face.

theye1 · Post by **theye1** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:25 am

Your whole grasp of the Syrian situation is stupid, there I said it. You're a paranoid moron if you believe what you type. I'm not usually so impolite, but I can't stand how proud of your ignorance you are. Gods, stop listening to Alex Jones and and David Ickle, and read a fucking book.

tussock wrote:OK, so wikileaks has shown us that this whole civil war thing in Syria got started with NATO, funding, providing arms, and training terrorists to assassinate important people and cause general mayhem.

Except the whole situation actually started much much earlier with the Syrian occupation of Lebanon (and it actually could be argued that the whole war much earlier in 1963 when the Baathists initiated a coup and basically murdered it's political opponents). Taking advantage of the uprising the Muslim Brotherhood (or a group affiliated MB, it's actually not very clear) initiated a revolt, long story short, MB lost and the Syrian government killed about 40,000 people in a single city called Hama. Today, the older leaders of the Free Syrian Army all come from that uprising.

Qatar is publicly funding the FSA, does that mean Qatar is behind the Syrian Uprising?

tussock wrote:What's the problem with Bashir that the US, France, and Britain (at the least) are all so keen to replace him with a more militant puppet?

They aren't keen, they were weary of actually supporting the FSA, but they were trapped by their own rhetoric. Nobody initially wanted Assad too fall, Syria's too important Geo-politicly and they were a bee's dick close too signing a peace agreement with Israel, but when the west came out for the Arab Spring, they were forced too support the FSA.

tussock wrote:Him being like 99% of the planet and not liking the occupation of Mesopotamia?

Except was he was actually in favour of the occupation of Iraq, it knocked off one major enemy and placed a government susceptible too American interests.

tussock wrote:That whole backing Lebanon against Israel thing?

That's... so fucking ignorant, I'm just going too pretend you didn't even write that.

tussock wrote:He keeps talking about government reforms,

You keep talking about propaganda, but in reality you got caught hook,line and sinker. He (and his father) said that for the last 40 year, nobody, not even the pro-assad faction believes it.

I wish you stop referencing Wikileaks. Stratfor is a joke, and wikileaks is a bigger joke for taking them seriously.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:20 am

theye1 wrote:They aren't keen, they were weary of actually supporting the FSA, but they were trapped by their own rhetoric. Nobody initially wanted Assad too fall, Syria's too important Geo-politicly and they were a bee's dick close too signing a peace agreement with Israel, but when the west came out for the Arab Spring, they were forced too support the FSA.

Except the US wasn't forced to support Arab spring uprisings in Bahrain, Yemen or Saudi Arabia. So I don't really see how the US was forced to support the FSA. The US clearly has a free hand to choose where it engages and how.

I wish you stop referencing Wikileaks. Stratfor is a joke, and wikileaks is a bigger joke for taking them seriously.

You know, I kind of agree with this. I'd go a step further and ask who can you trust? In Canada our most reputable media source the CBC, they usually move in pretty close lock-step with the current administration which affects their objectivity as journalists. For foreign coverage I can't take their reporting alone at face value. Who do you trust, and why?

theye1 · Post by **theye1** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:03 am

Juton wrote:
theye1 wrote:They aren't keen, they were weary of actually supporting the FSA, but they were trapped by their own rhetoric. Nobody initially wanted Assad too fall, Syria's too important Geo-politicly and they were a bee's dick close too signing a peace agreement with Israel, but when the west came out for the Arab Spring, they were forced too support the FSA.
Except the US wasn't forced to support Arab spring uprisings in Bahrain, Yemen or Saudi Arabia. So I don't really see how the US was forced to support the FSA. The US clearly has a free hand to choose where it engages and how.

There was no Arab spring in Saudi Arabia, it was a few hundred protesters and a Facebook page. I would also like too point out that US involvement in Yemen was kinda schizophrenic, the people involved in Counter-terrorism backed Saleh, whereas the state department basically forced him to resign. If saleh was still backed by the US government, he would still be president.

The political repercussions of actively going against Saudi Arabia, at a time when the USA desperately needs for it's support for it's actions against Iran, make it impossible for the Obama administration to support the movement in Bahrain. Opposing Saudi Arabia in Bahrain would also raise petrol prices, it would weaken him significantly.

Juton wrote:You know, I kind of agree with this. I'd go a step further and ask who can you trust?

It's not about trust. Stratfor is actually a joke, anybody who's actually involved in foreign policy basically ignore it's simplistic (and often wrong) analysis. They only people who think Stratfor is a "private CIA" are people fooled by it's PR campaign and wikileaks. You want a better understanding then Stratfor provides? Read the Guardian, NYTs, the Atlantic or even the economist.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:14 pm

theye1 wrote:It's not about trust. Stratfor is actually a joke, anybody who's actually involved in foreign policy basically ignore it's simplistic (and often wrong) analysis. They only people who think Stratfor is a "private CIA" are people fooled by it's PR campaign and wikileaks. You want a better understanding then Stratfor provides? Read the Guardian, NYTs, the Atlantic or even the economist.

It is absolutely about trust. Everyone has an agenda, some of those agendas can be benign but everyone has an agenda. I am not vouching for Stratfor or Wikileaks, I don't trust the former and hold the second under high scrutiny. Of the four publications you mentioned how many do you think parroted the line that Iraq had WMDs or that Dictator X (its been more than one) was throwing babies out of incubators?

Lastly, I'm curious where you found the number of Saudi protestors, I don't ever recall seeing specifics in print, I'd like a cite if at all possible.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:32 pm

theye1 wrote:Your whole grasp of the Syrian situation is stupid, there I said it. You're a paranoid moron if you believe what you type. I'm not usually so impolite, but I can't stand how proud of your ignorance you are. Gods, stop listening to Alex Jones and and David Ickle, and read a fucking book.

Who the fuck are they? What book? Fuck, man. For a guy out of nowhere who claims to spread learning, you sure sound like a reactionary moron.

Today, the older leaders of the Free Syrian Army all come from that uprising.

Duh, there are real divisions in Syria, you can't start shit like this unless someone's got a big-ass axe to grind. Still, those people are currently being funded, trained, and armed by NATO, in order to overthrow the sovereign government of Syria, by means of assassination and terrorism, following the plan that worked for them in Libya, only this time the security council told them to fuck off when it came time for the air support.

Qatar is publicly funding the FSA, does that mean Qatar is behind the Syrian Uprising?

Qatar is a glorified United States airbase, they're one of the countries that does as they're fucking well told.

tussock wrote:What's the problem with Bashir that the US, France, and Britain (at the least) are all so keen to replace him with a more militant puppet?
They aren't keen, they were weary of actually supporting the FSA, but they were trapped by their own rhetoric. Nobody initially wanted Assad too fall, Syria's too important Geo-politicly and they were a bee's dick close too signing a peace agreement with Israel, but when the west came out for the Arab Spring, they were forced too support the FSA.

What a complete load of shit. The United States been talking non-stop about overthrowing the Syrian government (and Iran, and NK) for 11 years now! Where the fuck do you even live that you haven't noticed that? Not to mention that the US does whatever the fuck it wants, regardless of what it has said in the past or will say about what it's doing. WMDs? Whatever! Lookout, Iran's going to give nukes to terrorists! Boo!

tussock wrote:Him being like 99% of the planet and not liking the occupation of Mesopotamia?
Except was he was actually in favour of the occupation of Iraq, it knocked off one major enemy and placed a government susceptible too American interests.

Oh, you're smoking crack. I see. We have always been at war with eastasia. Right.

tussock wrote:He keeps talking about government reforms,
You keep talking about propaganda, but in reality you got caught hook,line and sinker. He (and his father) said that for the last 40 year, nobody, not even the pro-assad faction believes it.

Believes what? Seriously, this is hard to find in the English language, what is he promising? I've got the same problem with the local Fijian coup, that guy took over to stop reforms, but no one will actually say what the reforms where there either. It's like this little in-joke for political commentators the world over.

I wish you stop referencing Wikileaks. Stratfor is a joke, and wikileaks is a bigger joke for taking them seriously.

Also, climate change, turns out absorption and emission spectra aren't real things after all. All you have to do is not listen to the people who keep speaking truth to power, and you too can believe whatever takes the fancy of the establishment.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:42 pm

The leaks from Stratfor are fascinating, because it shows a lot about what people who are "insiders" tell each other. However, many of the things mentioned in those emails are clearly and demonstrably false. So you can't use any of the accounts about what has happened in any part of the world as a record of what actually occurred.

When reading the stratfor emails, you have to look at them from the perspective of "A guy from Stratfor said X, why would they say that?" not from the perspective of "A guy from Stratfor said X, that means that X happened." I mean, let's look at Stratfor's statements about a place I do see the inner workings of: Czech Republic. Hint: Czech Republic is in no way going to drop out of NATO, whether they get F-16s or not. It's entirely possible that Prince Karel Schwarzenberg said something like that to a US diplomat at some point, because he is an asshole. But the chances of Schwarzenberg being the head of the Foreign Ministry after the next elections are fairly small, and there is no way in fuck that the Social Democrats or the ODS would go through with such an ultimatum. No matter who is in power after the next elections, such a threat would - at best - be a hilariously empty one.

Now, those caveats being on the table, the actual story that Stratfor has for Syria is extremely plausible. NATO forces have small numbers of special operatives infiltrating the Syrian resistance as a "contingency". This does not surprise me in the slightest, and I would be pretty shocked if they didn't. I'm sure there are operatives in Iran and Myanmar too.

Remember:

Stratfor's head analyst, describing a supposed Pentagon meeting wrote:stress that this is all being done as contingency planning, not as a move toward escalation

That is: according to a guy who we know is unreliable, he was in a discussion with some guys at the Pentagon, and they said they have some guys who they plan on activating to try to take Syria in a pro-NATO direction if it collapses and a new government is going to take over. There isn't much meat on that bone, and what there is is pretty fucking obvious. Of course NATO are going to try to get the new guys on their side if the Syrian government collapses and there are new guys in charge. And of course they have operatives on the ground right now, buttering up various likely looking successors. You could say the same about almost every unstable looking country on the planet!

-Username17

theye1 · Post by **theye1** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:11 am

tussock wrote:Who the fuck are they? What book? Fuck, man. For a guy out of nowhere who claims to spread learning, you sure sound like a reactionary moron.

Any book, really. The International Relations of the Persian Gulf by F. Gregory Gause for a start.

tussock wrote:Duh, there are real divisions in Syria, you can't start shit like this unless someone's got a big-ass axe to grind. Still, those people are currently being funded, trained, and armed by NATO, in order to overthrow the sovereign government of Syria, by means of assassination and terrorism, following the plan that worked for them in Libya, only this time the security council told them to fuck off when it came time for the air support.

Really, tell me what acts of terrorism has the FSA committed, what assassinations have they carried out? Tell me what excuse do you offer that excuses a mass murderer who deliberately murders and tortures the children of his political opponents? Fyi, it's not NATO whose are arming and training the FSA, it's Turkey and the other Arab states.

tussock wrote:Qatar is a glorified United States airbase, they're one of the countries that does as they're fucking well told.

Except when it doesn't. Qatar involved itself in Lebanon when it was told not to by the USA, it's one of Hamas's strongest backers, moreso then Iran even. It generally also had warm relations with Iran. Qatar's support the Arab spring has almost nothing to do with US position, but rather an attempt to gain a leadership role among the Arab states.

tussock wrote:What a complete load of shit. The United States been talking non-stop about overthrowing the Syrian government (and Iran, and NK) for 11 years now!

Nobody. Nobody. Not Israel, Not the USA, and not even Saudi Arabia wants a unstable regime.

tussock wrote:Oh, you're smoking crack. I see. We have always been at war with eastasia. Right.

I meant Syrian interests. You do realize that Syria was one of the few Arab regimes too back Iran, in the Iran-Iraqi war? That Syria and the USA almost had the same goals for Iraq? You do realize that George Orwell would've been supportive of the FSA?

Let me ask you a question, what crime won't you excuse for the Arabs regime? How much repression and how many people have too die before you say that the Syrian government is going is wrong?

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:08 am

Fyi, it's not NATO whose are arming and training the FSA, it's Turkey and the other Arab states.

Do you have any proof of this statement at all?

Let me ask you a question, what crime won't you excuse for the Arabs regime? How much repression and how many people have too die before you say that the Syrian government is going is wrong?

There is a good question buried in here. Like when is NATO intervention acceptable in a country? You would want the good from that action to outway the bad. OK so the NATO goes in, blows up the regime and some infrastructure, what would happen next? Do you think the NATO is going to create a functioning democracy in Syria? Because they don't seem to have created one in Iraq or Afghanistan.

What will replace Assad will be the run of the mill kleptocracy, maybe laced with some theocracy. If its anything like Libya the militias will end up running the place. The people of Syria won't be freer, safer or have a higher standard of living.

theye1 · Post by **theye1** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:35 am

Juton wrote:Do you have any proof of this statement at all?

Saudi Arabia

Qatar

My bad, Turkey is merely a safe haven for the FSA.

Juton wrote:Do you think the NATO is going to create a functioning democracy in Syria?

I think the Syrians will create a functioning democracy in Syria. It's the self-determination of the Syrian people, the Syrian people people should have government they choose.

Juton wrote:What will replace Assad will be the run of the mill kleptocracy, maybe laced with some theocracy. If its anything like Libya the militias will end up running the place. The people of Syria won't be freer, safer or have a higher standard of living.

Where's your proof? Syria isn't Libya, in most parts of the country, gaddafi's government barely had a presence. The new Libyan government isn't rebuilding governmental infrastructure, it's creating it from scratch. It's still far too early too call Libya a failure.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:06 am

theye1 wrote:Saudi Arabia

Qatar

My bad, Turkey is merely a safe haven for the FSA.

Those links don't quite support the claim you made. For reference:

Fyi, it's not NATO whose are arming and training the FSA, it's Turkey and the other Arab states.

I don't think what you've provided is any evidence that NATO is not involved. I doubt the FSA has brand loyalty, they'd take guns from anyone. Assuming NATO isn't using Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to funnel the weapons so it doesn't look like it's getting involved.

Where's your proof? Syria isn't Libya, in most parts of the country, gaddafi's government barely had a presence. The new Libyan government isn't rebuilding governmental infrastructure, it's creating it from scratch. It's still far too early too call Libya a failure.

The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. The record of western involvement in the Middle East and neighbouring regions is not a good one. Don't get me wrong, I believe Syrians have the same rights to Life, Liberty and Good Governance as Canadians. I just believe that NATO influenced regime change will not bring that about and make the situation worse by escalating violence and destroying infrastructure.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:32 am

OK, just checking:

Saudi Arabia and Qatarpublicly state that they are sending arms to the FSA.
Turkey allows the FSA to publicly conduct command operations from their actual soil.
13 French people were captured in Syria. They may or may not have been special op troopers.
A guy said that he heard that the US was training operatives to use as a contingency (but not to escalate) in Syria.

And your response is:

Juton wrote:I don't think what you've provided is any evidence that NATO is not involved.

Well shit, that's true. You can't prove a negative. The thing is: there actually isn't any proof that NATO is involved. There is some sketchy hearsay that France and the United States may be providing logistical support to the FSA using undercover operatives. But Turkey is explicitly and openly giving them logistical support. The FSA comes out and publicly claims that Turkey is giving them protection and coordinating military intelligence.

You know that Turkey is a member of NATO, right? If they wanted to play the NATO card, they could just do that. The thing is that for whatever reason, the NATO council has voted to do nothing about Syria (well, suggest impotent sanctions, but that's the same thing). Turkey is openly providing logistical aid to the FSA regardless of the overall NATO strategy.

Look, I'm absolutely positive that there are American and French spies in Syria. But I have no proof whatsoever of what, if anything, they are actually doing other than presumably collecting intelligence and sending it back home. On the flip side: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey are openly backing the rebel army with tangible support. If you think that blaming the US and French spies for the war is a reasonable thing to do, then you have at the very least watched too much James Bond and think that spies are way more powerful than they actually are.

-Username17

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:21 pm

Just to be clear, Saudi Arabia and Qatar do not share a border with Syria. If they're sending arms to the FSA, whose little war sits right on the border with Iraq, one might suggest they're moving them through the US controlled territory of Iraq (or the British controlled Jordan). That's not happening in secret, eh, Iraq is all pass cards and very trigger-happy roadblocks for a decade now.

That'd be the same Iraq the US has been bitching about the Syrian government supplying arms to the resistance over that time period. Where do the Saudis and Qataris buy their arms? Why, they buy them from the US government with US taxpayer money. Duh.

Turkey doesn't like war crimes now? Someone should alert their Kurdish minority, or the Armenians we still get to pretend they never committed genocide against. It's nice that their politicians say the right thing (to settle their own people, if for no other reason), but so do the US politicians (even about Afghanistan, or Iraq), and the French ones (about the CAR, or Algeria). They arrested some spies and assassins? Yeh, so does everyone. New Zealand arrested the Israeli spies we found a few years back now, the US routinely kicks out friendly nation's spies. It's perfectly normal stuff.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:39 pm

tussock wrote:Just to be clear, Saudi Arabia and Qatar do not share a border with Syria. If they're sending arms to the FSA, whose little war sits right on the border with Iraq, one might suggest they're moving them through the US controlled territory of Iraq (or the British controlled Jordan).

You could suggest that, but you don't have any actual evidence of that. On the other hand, Turkey is on the border and is quite open about allowing material support to flow across their border into Syria.

Time for Occam's Razor. Are you seriously suggesting that Turkey (who is a member of NATO) is lying about allowing the FSA to supply themselves from Turkish territory and to receive foreign material support at mailing addresses in Turkish territory in order to hide NATO involvement in smuggling Qatarian goods across Iraq?

Because if that's your game, I do not want to play.

Turkey doesn't like war crimes now? Someone should alert their Kurdish minority, or the Armenians we still get to pretend they never committed genocide against. It's nice that their politicians say the right thing (to settle their own people, if for no other reason), but so do the US politicians (even about Afghanistan, or Iraq), and the French ones (about the CAR, or Algeria). They arrested some spies and assassins? Yeh, so does everyone. New Zealand arrested the Israeli spies we found a few years back now, the US routinely kicks out friendly nation's spies. It's perfectly normal stuff.

This is basically just word salad. Turkey gets all weird if you mention crimes of the Ottoman Empire and vigorously denies that doing horrible things to Kurds counts as a war crime. But yes, other than that they have been very good about condemning and working against atrocities committed against civilians all over the muslim world. They send humanitarian aid to Palestine, they give supplies to Arab Spring movements around the region, blah blah blah.

In fact, most of the countries in the region talk big when it comes to supporting democracy movements in other countries. Iran supports Arab Spring in every country except Iran. Saudi Arabia supports Arab Spring in every country except Saudi Arabia and UAE. It's not a weird position. Everyone wants to shoot their own dissidents, but everyone wants to be seen supporting self determination and freedom for oppressed peoples in other countries.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Turkey is doing anything other than what it claims to be doing: openly supporting a revolutionary movement in a neighboring country. And there is no reason to believe that they are doing it for any reason other than the one given: their neighbor had become unstable enough that they were a threat to the Turkish people and were straining the Turkish economy by having refugees flee there in significant numbers.

Do you have a single shred of evidence that there is a deeper conspiracy than the one the Turks have already admitted to?

-Username17

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:05 pm

Let me ask you a question, what crime won't you excuse for the Arabs regime? How much repression and how many people have too die before you say that the Syrian government is going is wrong?

Where to start.
[*]What crime have I excused? Which is to say, fuck you and your false rhetoric.
[*]The Syrian monarchy and their supporters are a bunch of war criminals and should go die in a fire. Please note I think the same of most of the world's governments and large corporations. Please also note that attempts to bring this about make you one of that same club, IMHO.
[*]People should be free from government shelling, and free from foreign-aided insurgencies, and religion, and sexism and other ignorant bigotry, and copyright, and all sorts. Some of these things are more scary, others vastly more common and insidious.

But what crime pisses me off right now? Poor fucking logic, son. Yours.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:45 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:OK, just checking:
...
[*] 13 French people were captured in Syria. They may or may not have been special op troopers.
[*] A guy said that he heard that the US was training operatives to use as a contingency (but not to escalate) in Syria.[/list]

I wanted to bring up the 13 Frenchmen found in Syria but I wasn't able to get a cite for it that was very good. I think the Telegraph reported on it but listed it as a rumour.

Well shit, that's true. You can't prove a negative. The thing is: there actually isn't any proof that NATO is involved. There is some sketchy hearsay that France and the United States may be providing logistical support to the FSA using undercover operatives. But Turkey is explicitly and openly giving them logistical support. The FSA comes out and publicly claims that Turkey is giving them protection and coordinating military intelligence.

You can prove a negative, in some cases, but in most cases its unreasonable or impossible to ask someone to do so. At any rate me asking Theye1 to prove NATO is not involved is kind of a shitty argument and beneath the standard of rhetoric of the den.

I do think it is reasonable to compare this operation to the one in Libya. Even though the FSA isn't being supported with air strikes, if we assume the stories that the French operating in Syria are true they are doing a lot more than intelligence gathering. Its come out that the some NATO countries where helping (the Libyan Rebels) get better organized to conduct operations. Here's a more in depth link.

Troop training, not limited to just tactics and strategy but technical training to call in airstrikes and aim artillery. Coordination between different groups of the Rebels. I think there is a line in there about 'operational coordination' which could mean that at time the NATO special forces where directing how and where the Rebels forces where being used. While the NATO troops weren't the bulk of the army I would expect that they would fight if it was necessary or advantageous to do so.

If what they are doing in Syria is similar, assuming that they are just spies operating isn't that plausible.

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:31 pm

Juton wrote: ...beneath the standard of rhetoric of the den.

Heh.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:39 pm

Juton wrote: Its come out that the some NATO countries where helping (the Libyan Rebels) get better organized to conduct operations. Here's a more in depth link.

Is this some new rhetorical technique where people pretend something was secret in an effort to drum up outrage over it, even though it literally made the front page of the Washington Post at the time? They literally told reporters that they were trying to improve coordination between Libyan rebels and NATO air support and it was contributing to the rebels beginning to make major gains in pushing back government forces. That is what your links actually say! The first one isn't a retrospective, it's from during the civil war.