Elsewhere in the Middle East

[LouiseBrooks]

I defy anyone to watch this Iraqi MP without weeping.

We are talking about NOW, after the Bush/Blair Iraq invasion 10-15 years ago, and after 'the Arab Spring', where the 'imbalance' of dictator regimes were often tilted to a Shia/Sunni minority, in countries where 'the majority' and several minorities were being oppressed - hence popular uprisings.

Do you disagree that this was happening, that every Arab was NOT a happy bunny and content with his 'lot' as oil wealth mainly went to the ruling sect, yes or no?????

Do you disagree that the west can greatly influence the Shia/Sunni historical rivalries, so relevant to today, yes or no?

Re Syria/Assad, READ MY ANSWER AGAIN TO THAT STUPID BLAIR QUOTE you keep reguritating, and answer, if a Syria used tanks on its population during peaceful protests and nerve gas, from an arsenal of 1,000 tons, THERE IS NO GOING BACK, yes or no?

'every Arab was NOT a happy bunny and content with his 'lot' as oil wealth mainly went to the ruling sect, yes or no?????'

Yes, and?

'Do you disagree that the west can greatly influence the Shia/Sunni historical rivalries, so relevant to today, yes or no?'

Not sure I understand this phrasing correctly, it's got my head spinning, but I agree that the West can greatly influence the Shia/Sunni historical rivalries and in fact is doing so

'if a Syria used tanks on its population during peaceful protests and nerve gas, from an arsenal of 1,000 tons, THERE IS NO GOING BACK, yes or no?'

But they didn't use nerve gas. Are they up for war crimes over it in the International Criminal Court and has it been proven that they did it and not the rebels, have they been convicted of it? Have you read the acclaimed US journalist Seymour Hersh on it and did you listen to the speech of the statesman to the apparatchiks in the EU Parliament?

Syria has 1.000 tons of nerve gas, sarin etc etc across around 20 depots we know about as they are giving them up due to western demands – and although you have a point, it cannot be ‘CSI’ proven Assad did do it as rebels were getting close, taking Saddam and the Kurds, there is no reason to believe anyone worthy of the name oppressive dictator, didn’t.

FYI on Al-J news today, they are reporting on the Syrian government ‘Barrel Bombs’, filled with high explosives and shrapnel dropped by Assad onto homes in Aleppo, by helicopter. Using such clear terror tactics banned by the U.N. for months, the population has fallen from 3 million to 300,000.

And do you know what Assad’s response was to the U.N. ban? He doubled his ‘delivery’ rate,; so on chemical weapons you may give Assad who had the internationally banned weapons the benefit of the doubt on WHO gassed his own people, few others do.

Oh and you keep quoting Tony Blair re Syria etc, who you believe has the inside stories from dictators, well it appears he is more into the killing of innocent civilian dictator ‘damage limitation’, rather than a man of the people, the slippery bastard – so if HE can’t get a dictator off the hook, trust him, the position IS UNTENABLE.

“Tony Blair gives Kazakhstan President PR advice following 'massacre' of unarmed protesters”
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-gives-president-of-kazakhstan-pr-advice-following-massacre-of-unarmed-protesters-9689379.html

P.S. The Blair/Bush junior war with Saddam’s Iraq was Part Deux, and was ‘unfinished business’ started by Bush senior, even a crusade. But don’t forget what happened originally, Iraq invaded Kuwait on old territorial claims, so NOT a cut and dry western power regime change, ironically more a regional stability issue.

'Syria has 1.000 tons of nerve gas, sarin etc etc across around 20 depots we know about as they are giving them up due to western demands'

Yes, we know he has got that and Putin negoiated so that they would be destroyed

'UK sent chemicals to Syria to make deadly nerve gas like Sarin' admits William Hague

www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/uk-sent-chemicals-syria-make-3835974

But having them is different to using them. Here is Robert Fisk of the Independent

"Nevertheless, it also has to be said that grave doubts are being expressed by the UN and other international organisations in Damascus that the sarin gas missiles were fired by Assad's army . While these international employees cannot be identified, some of them were in Damascus on 21 August and asked a series of questions to which no one has yet supplied an answer. Why, for example, would Syria wait until the UN inspectors were ensconced in Damascus on 18 August before using sarin gas little more than two days later – and only four miles from the hotel in which the UN had just checked in ? Having thus presented the UN with evidence of the use of sarin – which the inspectors quickly acquired at the scene – the Assad regime, if guilty, would surely have realised that a military attack would be staged by Western nations.

As it is, Syria is now due to lose its entire strategic long-term chemical defences against a nuclear-armed Israel – because, if Western leaders are to be believed, it wanted to fire just seven missiles almost a half century old at a rebel suburb in which only 300 of the 1,400 victims (if the rebels themselves are to be believed) were fighters. As one Western NGO put it yesterday: if Assad really wanted to use sarin gas, why for God's sake, did he wait for two years and then when the UN was actually on the ground to investigate?

...

A witness who was with Syrian troops of the army's 4th Division on 21 August – a former Special Forces officer considered a reliable source – said he saw no evidence of gas shells being fired, even though he was in one of the suburbs, Moadamiya, which was a target for sarin. He does recall the soldiers expressing concern when they saw the first YouTube images of suffocating civilians – not out of sympathy, but because they feared they would have to fight amid clouds of poison.

"It would perhaps be going beyond conspiracy theories to say the government was not involved," one Syrian journalist said last week, "but we are sure the rebels have got sarin. They would need foreigners to teach them how to fire it. Or is there a 'third force' which we don't know about? If the West needed an excuse to attack Syria, they got it right on time, in the right place, and in front of the UN inspectors ."

www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/gas-missiles-were-not-sold-to-syria-8831792.html

But the British and American public and Farage and Diane Abbott and others stopped the attack on Syria.

Claig ….. such a rousing proletarian version of events on your last post, what a shame it is complete rollox (especially the bit about comrade Farage) and resulted into 200,000 Syrian dead, 9 million displaced and the birth/growth of ISIS.

The chemical weapons could have been delivered by ‘kin barrel for all we know, but why just focus on the 1,000 or so killed that way, as a percentage that is a ‘rounding error’ to those now dead – and how do you justify those 9 million plus figure early this year, which with the likes of his barrel attacks STILL GOING ON, nearly 9-months on, what do you think the total is now???????

Everyone was wary of attacking an Arab regime citing the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, especially the politicians from the Labour Party that MADE UP the dodgy dossier that took us to war with Iraq – but Assad was the real deal, and that parliamentary vote stopped ANY action by the UK and the U.S. to militarily help the civilians being murdered in Syria by Assad’s HEAVY ARTILLERY – and probably soured the prospects of SIMILAR QUICK AND DECISIVE action now with the U.S. against ISIS.

“David Cameron's plans for military action in Syria shot down in dramatic Commons vote”

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-plans-for-military-action-in-syria-shot-down-in-dramatic-commons-vote-8788612.html

“The prospect of British involvement in military action in Syria ended dramatically last night when David Cameron suffered a surprise and humiliating Commons defeat on the issue.”

“Despite concessions by the Prime Minister to opponents of military action, a rebellion by Conservative MPs and strong opposition by Labour saw the Government defeated by 285 votes to 272.”

“Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, confirmed there would now be no participation by the UK. He was “disappointed” by the Commons decision and admitted it would “place some strain” on the US-UK relationship. He blamed the Government's defeat partly on the the Iraq War, saying it had “poisoned the well” of public opinion, which had influenced MPs' votes.”

“The crushing blow for Mr Cameron is a huge coup for Ed Miliband, who toughened Labour's stance against military action after initially appearing ready to support it. The Opposition's line emboldened rebel Tory MPs. Many voted against a Labour amendment, calling for “compelling evidence” the Assad regime was responsible for the attack before UK involvement, which was rejected by 332 votes to 220.”

“The Independent has learnt that Mr Miliband toughened Labour's stance after being warned by Rosie Winterton, the Opposition Chief Whip, he would face a huge rebellion among the party's MPs if he supported military action. Some Labour insiders claim there could have been “one or more” resignations from the shadow Cabinet.”

As they say, "a huge coup for Ed Miliband", no such success for the people of Syria against an oppressive regime.

Claig ……. You may continue to give Syria’s Assad the benefit of the nerve gas doubt over a year ago (note my quip about ‘the barrel’ means of delivery above and what he is doing now)……. but for those who STILL think Assad is a dictator ‘the west can do business with’, this should FINALLY open their eyes re the oppression of Syria’s citizens by their own government. What a shame we let let them down.

“UN Says Syria May Have Used Chemical Weapons”
news.sky.com/story/1325488/un-says-syria-may-have-used-chemical-weapons
“The United Nations has said it believes the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in civilian areas eight times in April.”

"Reasonable grounds exist to believe that chemical agents, likely chlorine, were used on (northern Syrian villages) Kafr Zeita, al Tamana and Tal Minnis in eight incidents within a 10-day period in April," it said.”

"Witnesses saw helicopters drop barrel bombs and smelled a scent akin to domestic chlorine immediately following impact," it pointed out.”

“Victims, it said, had suffered "symptoms compatible with exposure to chemical agents, namely vomiting, eye and skin irritation, choking and other respiratory problems".

Look at the timing. Think about it. Bombing in Syria is just about to start.

Here is US Republican supporting Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh in his Aug 25th show.

'Obama Almost Allied with ISIS Against Assad in Syria'

..

And then shortly thereafter I remember talking about this on the radio and I had read a piece, which I reprinted yesterday and studied it all over again by Yossef Bodansky which documented (one year ago) that Assad was not gassing his own people. So I took that piece and I came here to the EIB Golden EIB Microphone and I openly speculated, based on what I had read in Yossef Bodansky, "You know, what if...?

"What if Assad isn't doing this? What if it's being made to look like Assad is gassing his own people by the rebels?" Who we learned later were Al-Qaeda. The Bodansky piece documents how the United States was on the verge with Turkey and Qatar and a couple other allies of arming (I mean, heavily arming) the Syrian rebels and planning bombing strikes against Assad targets. Now, that never happened.

But a year ago when I shared the Bodansky story I started getting e-mails from people who claimed to have knowledge of Syria and the Mideast. Some had worked there, some had families there, some were from there, and they all said that Bodansky was right, that it's a huge mistake. Assad would never gas his own people, particularly in Damascus. He just wouldn't do it. There's nothing in it for him.

Because a year ago Assad was winning this civil war. That's why we were thinking of going in and helping the so-called rebels because Assad was winning. There would have been and there was nothing in it for him to start gassing his own people, and I started hearing this from more and more people. So I started sharing that sentiment with you in this audience. I might have been, aside from Yossef Bodansky and couple others...

...

Look, the conventional wisdom was that Assad was gassing his own people. On this program I raised openly the possibility that maybe he wasn't. Maybe he actually was a victim here. Maybe he was being made to look guilty. So, anyway, that's filed away. This past weekend, I'm working feverishly both days on show prep, and I see that we are prepared that Obama is thinking about bombing in Syria.

But this time he's gonna bomb the rebels, not Assad! So I looked at that and I did a double-take. I said, "Wait a minute! Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! What's this about?" So I started delving into it. And, lo and behold, it turns out that what we were all speculating about a year ago was true. Assad was not gassing his own people, and the people that are making it look like Assad is gassing his own people is actually ISIS!

Here's the point: We came dangerously close one year ago to allying with ISIS thinking that they were just Syrian citizens rebelling against the dictator, Bashar al-Assad. We were this close, and Bodansky, Yossef Bodansky... I went back to my website, and I found everything we had discussed about it. I found the Bodansky piece, and I'm gonna ask Koko to repost it -- and 'cause I'm talking about it now, he will automatically do it.

You read the Bodansky piece, and it is as detailed as hell on all of the secret meetings that we, our government and intel services were having with the same people in Turkey and intel services from Qatar and a number of other places and that a year ago we were prepared to go in and unwittingly ally ourselves with the people who beheaded James Foley. That's the bottom line here.

And we didn't.

At the last minute we didn't because Obama never pulls the trigger on anything. So when I saw this weekend that we were thinking now of launching strikes against the quote/unquote "rebels" in Syria, I asked myself: How many people will remember that a year ago we raised the possibility on this program that Assad was not the bad guy in this particular instance?

If you'll recall, folks, one year ago, we're so close... I mean, the news is that bombing Assad is imminent, and then shortly after we had been discussing it on this program -- and this program had nothing to do with this. Don't misunderstand. I'm just giving a timeline. Shortly after we began discussing it and I started sharing the details of the Yossef Bodansky piece, there was a walk in the Rose Garden.

You recall?

...

Obama took a walk in the Rose Garden with a general or with somebody, and the attack was called off. Do you remember this? It was gonna be around September, first week in September of 2013. But there was a walk in the Rose Garden. The timing of it was not long after I had cited and taken the Yossef Bodansky piece national. So you can imagine my shock and dismay when I started digging into work on Saturday and Sunday to see that we're about to go into Syria -- and it's still possible.

...

RUSH: I am not justifying Obama's drawing the red line for Assad. It was a mistake to ever draw the red line against Assad. Assad was not the perp. It was a stroke of good fortune that Obama dillydallied on his own red line. But I'm not justifying. He should have never drawn the red line because Assad was not gassing his own people, as was the popular thought or perception a year ago.

Last Thursday the chairman of the chief joints of staff, general Martin Dempsey on Thursday of last week, said that we would have to hit ISIS in Syria if we're ever gonna beat them. He said that on Thursday. Now he says he's against it, and there's a reason. Somebody probably said, "Hey, general, you don't speak for the Regime," because he's backed off of that.

Now, what's the difference in ISIL and ISIS and why does Obama keep calling them ISIL? Well, I'm glad that you asked that question, because now I'm going to explain it to you. You notice how Obama keeps calling them ISIL and that is because he doesn't want to remind people that they are from Syria, that they are Syrian rebels. ISIL, ISIS is the same thing. The Islamic State of Iraq and Levant that's ISIL sounds a lot better than the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Two different names. I'll tell you, there's actually now a third name that is being used, a two letter acronym to describe these clowns, and it's I-S, which is the Islamic state.

Now, that's confusing, too, because the Islamic state of Iran is their official title. But this group, the Islamic state of Iraq and Levant is ISIL. ISIS is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Obama uses ISIL all the time for strategic reasons so as not to remind people that they're from Syria. Syria, that was such a close call, we want nothing to do with it at this point."

www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/08/25/obama_almost_allied_with_isis_against_assad_in_syria

'Because a year ago Assad was winning this civil war. That's why we were thinking of going in and helping the so-called rebels because Assad was winning.'

Assad was beating Al Qaeda, Isis, the Al Nusra Front and every funded Jihadist, terrorist and Chechen that was being thrown at Syria. It looked like it was al for Al Qaeda and their minions, Al Qaeda and their black flag brigade of funded terrorists were losing against Hezbollah and the Syrian Army.

Sorry Claig, I can't be arsed to read all that 'gloop', I'm sure THE POINT you are trying to make can be summarized in a paragraph or three, with a link or two attached for further ref/reading.

Lets agree to disagree despite the facts, and leave it at that.

it looked like it was all over for Al Qaeda.

Let's hope Assad finishes Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and, Isis off so that those terrorists don't threathen us.

Read it because Limbaugh is a conservative, a real one.

I don't care if he's got 'conservative' tattooed on his ar$e, or running through him like a stick of Brighton Rock, the facts are the facts, but if you want to adopt others opinions verbatim, please summarise those opinions - otherwise it looks at if you're just posting masses of gloop to turn over the threads page and hide opinions you don't happen to like. IMO. lol

FYI I believe I make my mind up from the facts and reading others opinions, but only when boiling the latter down and overlaying them with the facts, do I believe I have an opinion I can stand behind and firmly debate my case. Just saying.

Where do you get your facts from? The BBC?
Broaden your outlook, read some conservative sources such as US Pat Buchanan, US Rush Limbaugh, US web sites, the Independent's Robert Fisk, the Independent's Patrick Coburn and political sites that really know what is going on, mainly US ones, because they discuss what is going on.

Sorry, Patrick Cockburn not Coburn

And while you're at it, read the speeches of the statesman known as Nigel Farage

I can't believe I'm being lectured on 'informed opinions' by someone being U-kippered by a one-policy-party they can't deliver; I'm not particularly a smiley list person (I'm too uptight), but where is a double-raspberry when you need it. lol

Look, I read a lot of news, some via U.S. feeds, and kinda needed to do it for around 40-years (in another career life), so with 'jack-of-all news historic depth, I can make my own mind up - and if it hasn't already got your attention, I'm not always on the same side of a debate as the masses, which you keep telling me I should be on. So 'free-thinker' off.

'I'm not always on the same side of a debate as the masses'

You're never on the side of the masses and of what is right, that's why you are so anti Farage. Stop sucking up to what you think are your betters and use your 40 year reading experience to make your own mind up rather than blindly following what the "liberal biased" BBC tells you.

Errrrr ...... I'm not on the side of the masses, can't be fooled by a political snake oil salesman, yet blindly follow the BBC - I'll let other reconcile THAT blurt.

So in a word (rather than a gloop of them), do you know believe the UK was wrong NOT to help the people of Syria against Assad?

I believe that the liberal interventionists and neconservatives were wrong to ever start a process of regime change in Syria just as Blair and Bush were wrong to do so in Iraq.

"Mr Freeman says that he doubted that the liberal interventionists and neoconservatives who had pursued regime change in Syria were capable of reversing course. To do so would require them to admit that they bore considerable responsibility for legitimising pointless violence that has resulted in the deaths of 190,000 Syrians"

I think they should have let Assad destroy Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and Isis, because that lot threaten us and Assad doesn't.

Unlike Blair, I believe that there was a "process of change" that would leave Assad intact, and even Blair seems to have now realised it too.

I disagreed with Blair and you and agreed with Farage and the majority of the British public.

Claig ..... so you are refusing to acknowledge the FUNDAMENTAL facts, that the Sunni majority and others in Syria were being oppressed, were going to rise up one day - and whether murdered by their government during the original peaceful protests, or to this very day - if we would have been able to have taken out Assad's military capability early on, there would not have been 200,000 plus deaths and well over 9 million displaced. to date?

Bearing in mind that when a population are all relatively happy bunnies, you can have as much "liberal interventionists and neocon" shit theory as you like, it takes a lot more than a third party plot to get a civil war going.

In your Middle East, I guess there were no dictators, no oppressed masses, no religious factions and the 'Arab Spring' got sprung as everyone was happy with their lot - and outside influences came BEFORE the uprisings, rather than AFTER, when citizens NEEDED help, and took it from where offered - that tended to be along tribal/religeous lines.

'were going to rise up one day'

I think they were encouraged to rise up - were trained, armed and funded to by the "liberal intervionists and the neoconservatives".

I think if they had not been, then 190,000 people would not be dead, millions would not be displaced and Syria would not have been destroyed.

'you can have as much "liberal interventionists and neocon" shit theory as you like, it takes a lot more than a third party plot to get a civil war going.'

I tend to agree with the sentiment and knowledge of the former US ambassador to Syria

"Mr Freeman says that he doubted that the liberal interventionists and neoconservatives who had pursued regime change in Syria were capable of reversing course. To do so would require them to admit that they bore considerable responsibility for legitimising pointless violence that has resulted in the deaths of 190,000 Syrians"

Of course there were dictators but there weren't 190,000 dead.
Blair and some of his former spin doctors are apparently now advising the Eqyptian military dictator.

Claig ..... what came first, the unhappy masses chicken, or the 'neo' shit egg?

In this case the answer is obvious, as when the people rebelled by peaceful demonstrations, the men, women and children were so well trained, they all forgot to duck, and died.

Whether various dictators were not wished well by the west or not, whether outside influences got involved too soon after the people rebelled or not - the catalyst for 'change' came from the people - and for some reason you cannot get your head around the facts. before looking for answers you WANT to read, elsewhere.

'what came first, the unhappy masses chicken, or the 'neo' shit egg?'

The 'neo shit egg' of course, as usual

'His position is untenable. There is no process of change that leaves him intact.'

Sorry,

I tend to agree with the sentiment and knowledge of the former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia

not former ambassador to Syria