deadken posted:
yeah i dont think the idea that Autocrats We Like are only overthrown by international conspiracies while Autocrats We Don't Like are overthrown by righteous popular revolutions is particularly tenable

lol the trots round here are acting like this is a glorious people's revolution complete with soviet-style councils:

In the last weeks the town of Zabadani has been under the control of the masses and all forces of the regime have left. Since then a democratically elected local revolutionary council has taken power in the town and is ruling it according to the will of the people.

seems a touch optimistic to me

tpaine posted:
let me get this straight ken. autocrats we do like...are overthrown by international...aristocrats we don't like? by autocrats we don't...just...autocrats overthrown by righteous conspiracies we do ...we do....

basically the gist of my post is Hitler Ball(s)

futurewidow posted:

blinkandwheeze posted:
ken this isn't a "revolution", assad maintains popular support, this violence is being carried out by nato-gcc backed militants

that's way too neat and tidy imo

i'm not really speaking on the subject of Syria, since i'm not too familiar with it, but in general these operations that fit blinkandwheeze's outline are never too neat and tidy, even the bay of pigs is a murky subject, and not just from the CIA standpoint

babyfinland posted:

Crow posted:

babyfinland posted:
islamism is ugly

how do you mean

implementing shari'a through a legal and coercive-force monopoly is so perverse. (actually-existing) islamism can't be anything but reactionary without a revolutionary program to reorganize the modern state such that it permits legal pluralism (something it was designed to abolish in Europe, where legal pluralism meant feudal privileges)

how would you delineate this legal pluralism? separate-but-equal social and political spheres, maybe interceding at the economic level, there traversing the fantasy (HEH.)? maybe just social spheres, political spheres may be too divisive..
but what about national unity?

i was thinking about legal pluralism the other day, like setting up a Women's Court to police misogynist behavior

babyfinland posted:
both the regime and the vulture militias are Bad Guys

I agree. We've talked about how the autocrat model's really successful neutering of leftist opposition really only leaves room for the scumbag coercive islamist opposition. And in Syria the opposition seems to be clearly inspired and financed by typical parties.

This thing doesn't seem to have much chance of ending neatly, because alawites, druze, christians and to lesser extent, shia, know that they are all fucking dead or at least stripped naked and robbed of everything they have, if they lose. It seems clear that Saud is pushing back against Iran, and tons of Syrians are going to die horrible deaths because of it.

It's so fucking gross to see the coverage of this ramp up, as we learn over and over that Assad is !Killing his own People! It would be wonderful if Russia could broker some immediate ceasefire

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:
less absurd than china doing anything about it?

yeah russia has more at stake there. the precedent of them not doing anything in response to libya has some weight but it could go the other way too

gyrofry posted:
"i squeeze gats till mah clips is empty"
- vladimir putin

in russia a "gat" is a gas pump and he said this in reference to pumping gas for the man (EU)

1. Why has the Bashar al-Assad regime not fallen?
Because the majority of the Syrian population still supports it (55%, according to a mid-December poll funded by the Qatar Foundation. See "Arabs want Syria's President Assad to go - opinion poll", and note how the headline distorts the result.

Assad can count on the army (no defections from the top ranks); the business elite and the middle class in the top cities, Damascus and Aleppo; secular, well-educated Sunnis; and all the minorities - from Christians to Kurds and Druze. Even Syrians in favor of regime change - yet not hardcore Islamists - refuse Western sanctions and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-style humanitarian bombing.

2. Is Assad "isolated"?
As much as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may wish it, and the White House stresses "Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now" and "must step aside" - no. The "international community" proponents of regime change in Syria are the NATOGCC (North Atlantic Treaty Organization-Gulf Cooperation Council) - or, to be really specific, Washington, London and Paris and the oil-drenched sheikh puppets of the Persian Gulf, most of all the House of Saud and Qatar.

Turkey is playing a very ambivalent game; it hosts a NATO command and control center in Hatay province, near the Syrian border, and at the same time offers exile to Assad. Even Israel is at a loss; they prefer the devil they know to an unpredictably hostile post-Assad regime led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Assad is supported by Iran; by the government in Baghdad (Iraq has refused to impose sanctions); by Lebanon (the same); and most of all by Russia (which does not want to lose its naval base in Tartus) and trade partner China. This means Syria's economy will not be strangled (moreover, the country is used to life under sanctions and does not have to worry about a national debt). The BRICS group is adamant; the Syria crisis has to be solved by Syrians only.

3. What is the opposition's game?
The Syrian National Council (SNC), an umbrella group led by Paris exile Barhoun Galyan, claims to represent all opposition forces. Inside Syria, its credibility is dodgy. The SNC is affiliated with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) - composed of weaponized Sunni defectors, but mostly fragmented into armed gangs, some of them directly infiltrated by Gulf mercenaries. Even the Arab League report had to acknowledge the FSA is killing civilians and security forces, and bombing buildings, trains and pipelines.

The armed opposition does not have a central command; it is essentially local; and does not hold heavy weapons. The civilian opposition is divided - and has no political program whatsoever, apart from "the people want the downfall of the regime", taking a leaf from Tahrir Square.

4. How are Syrians themselves divided?
Those who support the regime see a foreign Zionist/American conspiracy - with Turkey and parts of Europe as extras - bent on breaking up Syria. And they see the armed "terrorist" gangs - infiltrated by foreigners - as solely responsible for the worst violence.

Dissidents and the fragmented civilian opposition were always peaceful and unarmed. Then they started to receive protection from military defectors - who brought their light weapons with them. They all dismiss the government version of events as pure propaganda. For them, the real armed "terrorists" are the sabbiha - murderous paramilitary gangs paid by the government. Sabbiha (which means "ghosts") are essentially depicted as Alawis, Christians and Druze, adults but also teenagers, sporting dark glasses, white sneakers, colored armbands, and armed with knives, batons and using fake names among them; the leaders are bodybuilder-types driving dark Mercedes.

Even mass rallies are in conflict. The protest rallies (muzaharat ) were confronted by the regime with processions (masirat). It's unclear whether the people who joined them were constrained civil servants or moved by spontaneous decision. Syrian state media depicts the protesters as agent provocateurs or mercenaries and roundly dismisses the anger of those who live under a harsh police state with no political freedom.

An extra dividing factor is that the UN death toll of over 5,000 people (so far) does not identify pro-regime and opposition victims, and simply ignores the over 2,000 dead Syrian army soldiers (their funerals are on state TV virtually every day).

http://www.voltairenet.org/Egypt-and-Syria

The states involved in the campaigns against Syria are increasing the talk about the priority of the discontinuation of violence. But these states are the same ones supplying the armed gangs on Syrian soil with money and weapons, while their spokespersons are all practicing political misleading and promoting lies to elude the responsibility.

Firstly: the French and American governments sent military experts and trainers to Lebanon and Turkey to organize the armed gangs affiliated with the Istanbul Council. This information was circulated by Western American, French, British, Italian and Spanish newspapers, before being tackled by any Arab or even Syrian media outlet. This involvement reached the point where the American administration officially asked the armed men not to relinquish their weapons following the issuance of the special pardon which was announced by the Syrian Interior Ministry.

The analyses and reports being promoted by the American policymakers reveal that the economic sanctions and blockade imposed on Syria with the participation of the Western states, alongside Gulf governments and the Turkish government, aim at creating the right climate for the expansion of the activities of the armed gangs and at pushing the country towards anarchy and civil war to subjugate Syria to the political agenda which the Americans assigned Borhan Ghalioun to expose, featuring the undermining of Syria’s pivotal position in the face of Zionist colonial hegemony.

Secondly, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu denied that his government was harboring armed terrorist groups carrying out killings and sabotage inside Syria, at a time when the entire world knows that the American and Western media reports confirmed the existence of these gangs on the Turkish-Syrian border and the existence of training camps and operations rooms led by the MB inside Turkish soil. This has been the case ever since the Jisr al-Shughur battles, i.e. when pictures of the MB armed elements appeared in Agence France Presse.

Thirdly: Saudi Arabia and Qatar on the other hand are the source of the funds with which the arms deals are being sealed with Lebanese and Turkish markets to smuggle weapons into Syria. These are the same funds with which the mercenaries are being bought, while the involvement of Bandar Bin Sultan and the Saudi institution of takfir led by Sheikh Saleh al-Louhaydan at the level of the Syrian events is no longer a secret to anyone. In that same context, the presence of Adnan al-Ar’our and his satellite channel in Riyadh constitutes in itself proof for the role of conspiracy and sabotage played by Saudi Arabia in Syria. Had Qatar and Saudi Arabia truly wanted to end the violence in the country, they would have discontinued their funding of the armed activities and pulled the hands of the Lebanese March 14 forces from the Syrian domestic arena as they did via the 2008 Doha accord.

Fourthly: The lie promoted by some Syrian opposition movements regarding the fact that what was happening was a peaceful action being oppressed has collapsed once and for all. This bloody violence which is being mobilized by the Western-Gulf-Turkish-Israeli alliance and being fueled with money and weapons under the cover of lame lies, aims at drowning Syria in chaos.

The political course towards reform was drawn up by President Bashar al-Assad while there is only one road towards stability. This requires the Syrian national state to carry out its duty and liquidate the armed terrorism pits throughout Syria, and respect the wishes of the Syrian people by putting an end to the dangerous depletion which has been ongoing since least year.

La Nouvelle République:You have been in Syria. What is your assessment? Does the reality on the ground tally with Western media reports concerning mass demonstrations, the live bullets fired into the crowd that left at least 5,000 dead, the formation of a "free Syrian army" already 1500 men strong and the beginning of a "civil war" with 1.5 million entrapped Syrians allegedly suffering from hunger?

Thierry Meyssan: According to a French saying, "when you want to get rid of your dog, you accuse it of having rabies." In this case, when the Western powers want to invade a state, their media mouthpieces claim that it is a barbaric dictatorship, that their armies can protect civilians and that they should overthrow the regime and bring democracy. We witnessed the truth in Iraq and Libya: the colonial powers couldn’t be less interested in the fate of the populations; they go in to devastate and plunder the country. There have never been any mass protests against the Syrian regime, therefore no live bullets could have been used to quell them. In recent months, there have been around 1 500 deaths, but not in the reported circumstances. There is indeed a "Free Syrian Army", but it is based in Turkey and Lebanon, and it is made up of a few hundred soldiers at the most, that are paraded before the cameras.

Finally, Syria is self-sufficient in food production and, despite distribution difficulties, there is no problem of scarcity. The version peddled by the Western media is pure fiction. The reality on the ground is that Western countries have unleashed a non-conventional war against Syria. They sent in Pashtun and Arab fighters, recruited by Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan and trained by French and German special forces. These fighters first attempted to establish Islamic emirates, then they started laying ambushes on Syrian military convoys. Today, they answer to an Al Qaeda emir, the Libyan Abdel Hakim Belhaj. They moved away from major operations and currently conduct commando assaults in the heart of the cities to spread terror in the hope of causing a sectarian civil war. Their latest feat is the double bombing in Damascus.

La Nouvelle République:In Syria as in Libya, some observers argue that the rebels are in fact death squads, foreign mercenaries. What is your take on that?

Thierry Meyssan: In both cases, there are nationals involved in the armed struggle, but they are largely outnumbered by foreign fighters. In Libya, groups from specific tribes joined the foreign mercenaries for the secession of Cyrenaica. But they refused to participate in the fight for the overthrow of Gaddafi in Tripoli. Al-Qaeda troops had to be deployed, and 5 000 commandos were shipped in and incorporated into the regular Qatari army to engage in the ground battle. In the final throes of the Jamahiriya, the tribe of Misrata joined NATO and entered Tripoli after the bombing and the ground hostilities had already stopped.

The only Libyans who fought against the regime from start to finish are the members of Al Qaeda, plus a group of soldiers who had defected with General Abdel Fatah Younes. However, General Younes had previously been ordered by Colonel Gaddafi to crush the Al-Qaeda rebellion. Hence, he was ultimately killed in reprisal by al-Qaeda affiliates when they no longer had any use for him.

In Syria, the insurgents are the Muslim Brotherhood and the Takfiris. But there are mainly foreign fighters who hire local thugs and pay them handsomely to kill their fellow citizens. NATO’s dilemma is that, unlike Libya, Syria is a historic nation. There is no regional divide as between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania. The only possible division is on a confessional basis, but it’s not working for now, although a few clashes of this type were witnessed in Banyias and Homs. The official arrival of the Libyans to set up headquarters in Turkey and to bring in Syrian deserters into the operation has brought things to completion.

La Nouvelle République:Some argue that what is happening in Syria is simply an extension of the "Arab revolution", when Syria has been on the US agenda since the Bush era, as reported by General Wesley Clark. In your opinion, how can Bashar Al-Assad avert this conspiracy?

Thierry Meyssan: As you just recalled, the decision to attack Syria was made at a meeting at Camp David, on 15 September 2001, just after the attacks in New York and Washington. The Bush administration had planned a series of wars: Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya and Syria, Sudan and Somalia, and ultimately Iran.

In 2003, just after the fall of Baghdad, the US Congress passed the Syrian Acountability Act which instructs the President of the United States to wage a war against Syria as soon as possible. What President Bush did not have time to do is now being accomplished by his successor Barack Obama.

General Wesley Clark decided to reveal this strategy several years ago to be in a better position to oppose it. He played a very important role during the Libyan War, that he tried unsuccessfully to stop with the help of several active duty generals. Together they represent a significant faction of senior officers who refuse to see their men die in foreign adventures that do not serve the interests of the United States, but those of some ideologues close to Israel. They will therefore do everything in their power to prevent a war in Syria and they have more leverage than is generally believed to influence world politics.

President Bashar al-Assad is not like his father. He is not an autocrat. He governs with a team. His government’s strategy is two-fold: to preserve civil peace in the face of destabilization attempts and threats of religious conflicts, and to strengthen its alliances, especially with Iran, Russia and China.

La Nouvelle République: An inescapable observation in the tumultuous context of the Arab world today, whether in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria, concerns the "reconciliation" between the West and the Islamic movement, their erstwhile enemy. In your opinion, what are the ins and outs of this new Western game?

Thierry Meyssan: I don’t think the West has ever regarded the Islamists as enemies. Historically, all empires have used them to curb national resistance movements. This was the case with the Ottomans, as with the French and the British. Don’t forget that France never applied the law of separation between church and state (1905) in Algeria. Instead, it leaned on the mosques to establish its authority. The Anglo-Saxons have always done the same.

Furthermore, the United States established Islamic movements in the 80’s in the hope of provoking a clash of civilizations between Islam and the Soviet Union. This was the strategy conceived by Bernard Lewis, implemented by Zbigniew Brzezinski, and theorized by Samuel Huntington for public consumption. This gave rise to Al-Qaeda. These people have defended the interests of the US empire in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Chechnya, and more recently in Iraq, Libya and now Syria.

Abdel Hakim Belhaj, who was appointed by Ayman Al-Zawahiri as Al-Qaeda’s number three man when the Islamic Fighting Group in Libya was absorbed by Al-Qaeda, is now the military governor of Tripoli and the commander of the Free Syrian Army. He nonchalantly introduces himself as NATO’s man and demands retribution from the MI6 for having tortured him in the past.

As for the Muslim Brotherhood which Washington has brought to power in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, and would like to install in Syria, they are historically linked to MI6. They were conceived by Hassan Al-Banna for the purpose of fighting the British, but they were instead used by the British to fight Nasser. Today, they are swimming in grants from the Gulf Cooperation Council, which is hardly a sign of independence.

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:
PEPEZIIIINHOOOO!!!