Breaking News: Syria shelling inside of Turkey
- Thread starter RedBeard
- Start date
Cheetah786
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,002
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Ignorance isn't a defense you can hide behind like or not your denial don't hide the reality.
Cerian
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2010
- Messages
- 375
- Reaction score
- 0
Fixed.
Stop with speculations please. It's already bad enough that some news outlets write such things, but it's worse when you believe in them. FYI, this allegation was denied by Foreign Ministry.
Dark.Prince
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 134
- Reaction score
- 0
why isnt that son of a ***** assad resigning
KRAIT
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 16,971
- Reaction score
- -27
- Country
- Location
May be he is waiting for more people to die.
Abii
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 6,690
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
would you step down if you knew that not only your entire family would die as a result, but your entire tribe etc...?
You guys gotta understand the tribal and secterian reality of a lot of these arab countries + Afghanistan. Central govts and regimes mean jack to them. They answer to their tribes and religious sects. Look at Libya, Yemen and even AFG (Hazara versus Pashtun versus Tajik).
Assad is the best thing for a country like this. He's secular and firm. Bring in the "Muslim Brotherhood" types and the country will become an Al Quida stronghold within months. On top of that, they will start fighting each other in a decade ALL OVER AGAIN.
BordoEnes
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,753
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Saddam was the same and you know what kind of horrible acts against humanity he did? I rest my case...
aakash_2410
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,249
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
India should just try and push the UN resolution on humanitarian cause but we shouldn't get involved in this. There's nothing in it for us. We're not gonna get anything out of it. For example, West will have their puppet government and Assad is already a puppet of Russia and China.
Unfortunately in this tug of war of political powers a common man of Syria is getting pulled from both sides. :/
Abii
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 6,690
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
Saddam wasn't secular, not by a long shot. He was an Arab nationalist, but not secular. He considered shias as heretics and killed hundreds of thousands of them. Sunni Islam for him was the only Islam and the only religion that mattered. There is a differnece between a nationalist and a secular leader who wants to seperate the church and the state. In all his time in power, Saddam used religion to his own benefit, just like the mullahs in Iran.
Alpery
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 379
- Reaction score
- 0
chemical attack to children in Sunni Islam is forbiden ..forget about their religions..Hafız and Saddam both was BAAS...both dictator...both killed their people..
Syrian army lost 40.000 soldier to FSA, who are the terrorist?
Syria's situation same as Libia
but Gaddafy not gived a naval base and ordered figthers from Russians
and did not send some petroil to China
Cheetah786
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,002
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Yeah foreign Ministry was going to come out in the open and admit this
yeah 
you the guy who bought Brooklyn bridge.
Cheetah786
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,002
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Syria has been on the Pentagon's drawing board for years, largely because of its important geo-strategic placement in the Middle East.
The process of cornering the Syrian Arab Republic started with earlier accusations pertaining to the alleged development of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). From 2003 to 2004, George W. Bush Jr. even considered using this as a pretext to invade Syria after the fall of Baghdad as "Phase III" of the "Global War on Terror." These pretexts later gave way to accusations of "Syrian interference" in Iraq as well as the alleged role of Damascus in the 2005 Hariri Assassination in Lebanon.
In 2007, these various allegations evolved towards accusations of support for Fatah Al-Islam near the Lebanese city of Tripoli and, in league with Israel's Operation Orchard, claims that Damascus was involved, with the support of Tehran and Pyongyang, in a secret nuclear weapons program. The latter was allegedly part of a "Syria-Iran-North Korea nuclear proliferation axis." Now in 2011-2012, the humanitarian "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) card is being played.
The road to Damascus goes through Beirut. Washington's roadmap against Syria always involved Lebanon as a multi-faceted springboard. In fact, Washington and its allies wanted the deployment of UNIFIL troops, mostly comprised of NATO soldiers, being sent to Lebanon to be stationed on the Lebanese-Syrian border in 2006. Feeling threatened, Damascus warned that it would close the borders with Lebanon and the idea was scrapped.
Syria was the main target of the 2006 Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Regime change in Damascus was the key objective. Tel Aviv's 2006 defeat in Lebanon by Hezbollah and its allies spared Syria from an attack and probably prevented a broader regional war involving Iran and NATO.
It is after the 2006 events in Lebanon that Washington took the initiative to negotiate with Damascus in the diplomatic arena. These attempts lasted up until 2011 and were aimed at de-linking Syria from Iran and the Resistance Bloc or "Axis of Resistance." During this diplomatic engagement, which attempted to distance Damascus from Tehran, Tom Lantos, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives visited Damascus and warned the Syrian regime to join ranks with Saudi Arabia and the United States against Iran.
Lantos threatened President Al-Assad while intimating that a few years down the road that there would be a new geo-political reality: "Sunni Muslims and not Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be in control in the region, and it is to the advantage of Damascus to know which side to be on."
2007 was slated for an Israeli rematch against Lebanon that never happened. Very telling is the fact that talks of war were also aimed at Syria too. Washington and Tel Aviv also realized that after 2006 they could no longer launch separate wars against Syria and in Iran. Damascus and Tehran would not fight in isolation from one another. A war against Syria would equate to a war with Iran and vice-versa.
Looking through the timeline of events and all the important dates, it would appear that Washington originally had planned on going to war with Iran by late-2007 or in 2008. This is clear from all the statements being made by both sides in 2007 about war preparations. This also roughly fits into the timeline formed by U.S. military exercises, official statements, rumours of war, and General Wesley Clark's historic 2001 statement (in the wake of the invasion of Afghanistan) that Syria was included in a list of targeted countries for U.S. military intervention on the basis of a five-year military roadmap. The Israeli defeat in Lebanon, however, upset the timeline of the Pentagon's military roadmap.
In 2007, when all sides were talking about a regional war igniting, Washington and its allies did launch their war. It is in this period that the destabilization and shadow wars against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran commenced. President George W. Bush Jr. authorized the beginning of this shadow war, which included a combination of "colour revolutions" and covert attacks.
In Lebanon, Fatah Al-Islam emerged in the Shamal (North) Governate, imported into the area by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance to fight Hezbollah and its allies in Lebanon. In parallel, an intense spy war against Hezbollah and its allies had also begun.
In Iran, the terrorist organization known as Jundullah (established in 2003), intensified its attacks in the province of Sistan and Baluchistan using Afghanistan and Pakistan as launch pads.
The struggle to establish the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) would also intensify and become a factor in the backdrop of the 2008 internal Lebanese fighting between Hezbollah's camp and Hariri's camp.
Having failed to launch another war in 2007 or 2008, Tel Aviv would renew talks with Damascus. Under the framework of deepening Syrian-Turkish ties, Ankara would facilitate the indirect talks between Damascus and Tel Aviv. The stumbling block between the Israelis and Syrians, however, would always be Syrian foreign policy and Syria's membership in the "Axis of Resistance."
In 2008, events in Lebanon would once again hamper Washington's agenda. Under the guise of the Siniora government the Hariri camp was actively working on systematically weakening Hezbollah in coordination with the interests of Washington and Tel Aviv. Hariri and his allies had already given their tacit support to Israel during its 2006 aerial bombardment of Lebanon with the hope that Hezbollah would be eliminated as an outcome of the war. The efforts by Hariri's camp to remove Hezbollah's Iranian-installed communication network would have crippled Hezbollah logistically and tactically. Finally, the growing internal tensions between both Lebanese sides over the issue would result in the outbreak of fighting in May 2008.
The internal fighting in Lebanon in 2008 would result in a tactical victory on the ground for Hezbollah and a political victory for it and its coalition with the Doha Accord. Hezbollah would defeat the private army that the Hariri camp had been building, keep its communication network, and also gain a veto in the new Lebanese national unity government.
While both Hezbollah and the Hariri camp played down the fighting that occurred between them in 2008, there was much more at stake. A heated secret battle involving intelligence agents from Jordan, NATO countries, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries took place in and around Beirut. Hezbollah would effectively route these forces. It was in this context that U.S. and Israeli officials would later vaguely comment by describing the events in Lebanon as a "major setback" and "ruining years of work in Lebanon."
The use of Lebanon via anti-Syrian elements as a political weapon to "roll back Syria" geo-strategically, as proposed by Richard Perle and other neo-conservatives in an Israeli policy paper, had come to a virtual standstill. Walid Jumblatt and his Progressive Socialist Movement would leave the March 14 Alliance and Hariri would also be forced to retract his accusations against the Syrians about the murder of his father in 2005. Hariri would go on to tell the Saudi-owned Asharq Al-Awsat, a mouthpiece for his Al-Saud patrons, in an interview that his claims against Damascus were motivated by politics. He would state: "This was a political accusation and it has finished."
The U.S. withdrawal from Iraq has made removing Syria from the orbit of Iran critical for Washington and Tel Aviv. In 2011, diplomacy was openly cast aside in favour of "regime change." The groundwork for this probabily started in 2010 after the summit in Damascus between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar Al-Assad, and Hassan Nasrallah when Washington realized its diplomatic efforts to de-link Syria from Iran were in vain.
While the political dimensions of Lebanon as a springboard against Syria were greatly reduced after Hezbollah's victory in 2008, the 2009 Lebanese parliamentary elections, and finally the removal of Hariri from the premiership in 2011, Lebanon's logistical aspects as a base for destabilizing Syria were not given up by Washington and its allies. Segments of the Internal Security Forces (ISF) of Lebanon, which are informally controlled by the Hariri camp, almost certainly were preparing for the use of Lebanon as a weapons hub for the so-called "Free Syrian Army" and other forces from late-2010 to mid-2011.
There is also an increasing and diabolical push to paint the events in Syria along sectarian Shiite-Sunni lines. Syria's alliance with Iran is being questioned because Iran is a non-Arab country predominantly populated by Shia Muslims and Syria is an Arab state mostly inhabited by Sunni Muslims. This is mere propaganda. Using this logic, those that fiendishly push these talking points would never be able to justify the Saudi, Qatari, Jordanian, and GCC alliances with Turkey, NATO, and the United States under the same standards. These are all non-Arab countries and, aside from Turkey, are predominantly non-Muslim, let alone Sunni Muslim. Yet, the same disingenuous discourse is never applied when speaking about their foreign relations.
In geo-political terms, NATO and GCC support for armed insurgency and civil strife in the Syrian Arab Republic is trying to achieve what the 2006 Israeli war against Lebanon failed to achieve: the surrender of Damascus. Using Syria's borders with Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and Iraq, armed groups are being supplied and supported. Amongst the foreign fighters are members of Fatah Al-Islam from Lebanon and co-opted members of the Awakening Groups, which was initially funded by the U.S. when it was founded 2005, entering Syria from Al-Anbar, Iraq.
The process of cornering the Syrian Arab Republic started with earlier accusations pertaining to the alleged development of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). From 2003 to 2004, George W. Bush Jr. even considered using this as a pretext to invade Syria after the fall of Baghdad as "Phase III" of the "Global War on Terror." These pretexts later gave way to accusations of "Syrian interference" in Iraq as well as the alleged role of Damascus in the 2005 Hariri Assassination in Lebanon.
In 2007, these various allegations evolved towards accusations of support for Fatah Al-Islam near the Lebanese city of Tripoli and, in league with Israel's Operation Orchard, claims that Damascus was involved, with the support of Tehran and Pyongyang, in a secret nuclear weapons program. The latter was allegedly part of a "Syria-Iran-North Korea nuclear proliferation axis." Now in 2011-2012, the humanitarian "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) card is being played.
The road to Damascus goes through Beirut. Washington's roadmap against Syria always involved Lebanon as a multi-faceted springboard. In fact, Washington and its allies wanted the deployment of UNIFIL troops, mostly comprised of NATO soldiers, being sent to Lebanon to be stationed on the Lebanese-Syrian border in 2006. Feeling threatened, Damascus warned that it would close the borders with Lebanon and the idea was scrapped.
Syria was the main target of the 2006 Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Regime change in Damascus was the key objective. Tel Aviv's 2006 defeat in Lebanon by Hezbollah and its allies spared Syria from an attack and probably prevented a broader regional war involving Iran and NATO.
It is after the 2006 events in Lebanon that Washington took the initiative to negotiate with Damascus in the diplomatic arena. These attempts lasted up until 2011 and were aimed at de-linking Syria from Iran and the Resistance Bloc or "Axis of Resistance." During this diplomatic engagement, which attempted to distance Damascus from Tehran, Tom Lantos, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives visited Damascus and warned the Syrian regime to join ranks with Saudi Arabia and the United States against Iran.
Lantos threatened President Al-Assad while intimating that a few years down the road that there would be a new geo-political reality: "Sunni Muslims and not Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be in control in the region, and it is to the advantage of Damascus to know which side to be on."
2007 was slated for an Israeli rematch against Lebanon that never happened. Very telling is the fact that talks of war were also aimed at Syria too. Washington and Tel Aviv also realized that after 2006 they could no longer launch separate wars against Syria and in Iran. Damascus and Tehran would not fight in isolation from one another. A war against Syria would equate to a war with Iran and vice-versa.
Looking through the timeline of events and all the important dates, it would appear that Washington originally had planned on going to war with Iran by late-2007 or in 2008. This is clear from all the statements being made by both sides in 2007 about war preparations. This also roughly fits into the timeline formed by U.S. military exercises, official statements, rumours of war, and General Wesley Clark's historic 2001 statement (in the wake of the invasion of Afghanistan) that Syria was included in a list of targeted countries for U.S. military intervention on the basis of a five-year military roadmap. The Israeli defeat in Lebanon, however, upset the timeline of the Pentagon's military roadmap.
In 2007, when all sides were talking about a regional war igniting, Washington and its allies did launch their war. It is in this period that the destabilization and shadow wars against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran commenced. President George W. Bush Jr. authorized the beginning of this shadow war, which included a combination of "colour revolutions" and covert attacks.
In Lebanon, Fatah Al-Islam emerged in the Shamal (North) Governate, imported into the area by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance to fight Hezbollah and its allies in Lebanon. In parallel, an intense spy war against Hezbollah and its allies had also begun.
In Iran, the terrorist organization known as Jundullah (established in 2003), intensified its attacks in the province of Sistan and Baluchistan using Afghanistan and Pakistan as launch pads.
The struggle to establish the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) would also intensify and become a factor in the backdrop of the 2008 internal Lebanese fighting between Hezbollah's camp and Hariri's camp.
Having failed to launch another war in 2007 or 2008, Tel Aviv would renew talks with Damascus. Under the framework of deepening Syrian-Turkish ties, Ankara would facilitate the indirect talks between Damascus and Tel Aviv. The stumbling block between the Israelis and Syrians, however, would always be Syrian foreign policy and Syria's membership in the "Axis of Resistance."
In 2008, events in Lebanon would once again hamper Washington's agenda. Under the guise of the Siniora government the Hariri camp was actively working on systematically weakening Hezbollah in coordination with the interests of Washington and Tel Aviv. Hariri and his allies had already given their tacit support to Israel during its 2006 aerial bombardment of Lebanon with the hope that Hezbollah would be eliminated as an outcome of the war. The efforts by Hariri's camp to remove Hezbollah's Iranian-installed communication network would have crippled Hezbollah logistically and tactically. Finally, the growing internal tensions between both Lebanese sides over the issue would result in the outbreak of fighting in May 2008.
The internal fighting in Lebanon in 2008 would result in a tactical victory on the ground for Hezbollah and a political victory for it and its coalition with the Doha Accord. Hezbollah would defeat the private army that the Hariri camp had been building, keep its communication network, and also gain a veto in the new Lebanese national unity government.
While both Hezbollah and the Hariri camp played down the fighting that occurred between them in 2008, there was much more at stake. A heated secret battle involving intelligence agents from Jordan, NATO countries, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries took place in and around Beirut. Hezbollah would effectively route these forces. It was in this context that U.S. and Israeli officials would later vaguely comment by describing the events in Lebanon as a "major setback" and "ruining years of work in Lebanon."
The use of Lebanon via anti-Syrian elements as a political weapon to "roll back Syria" geo-strategically, as proposed by Richard Perle and other neo-conservatives in an Israeli policy paper, had come to a virtual standstill. Walid Jumblatt and his Progressive Socialist Movement would leave the March 14 Alliance and Hariri would also be forced to retract his accusations against the Syrians about the murder of his father in 2005. Hariri would go on to tell the Saudi-owned Asharq Al-Awsat, a mouthpiece for his Al-Saud patrons, in an interview that his claims against Damascus were motivated by politics. He would state: "This was a political accusation and it has finished."
The U.S. withdrawal from Iraq has made removing Syria from the orbit of Iran critical for Washington and Tel Aviv. In 2011, diplomacy was openly cast aside in favour of "regime change." The groundwork for this probabily started in 2010 after the summit in Damascus between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar Al-Assad, and Hassan Nasrallah when Washington realized its diplomatic efforts to de-link Syria from Iran were in vain.
While the political dimensions of Lebanon as a springboard against Syria were greatly reduced after Hezbollah's victory in 2008, the 2009 Lebanese parliamentary elections, and finally the removal of Hariri from the premiership in 2011, Lebanon's logistical aspects as a base for destabilizing Syria were not given up by Washington and its allies. Segments of the Internal Security Forces (ISF) of Lebanon, which are informally controlled by the Hariri camp, almost certainly were preparing for the use of Lebanon as a weapons hub for the so-called "Free Syrian Army" and other forces from late-2010 to mid-2011.
There is also an increasing and diabolical push to paint the events in Syria along sectarian Shiite-Sunni lines. Syria's alliance with Iran is being questioned because Iran is a non-Arab country predominantly populated by Shia Muslims and Syria is an Arab state mostly inhabited by Sunni Muslims. This is mere propaganda. Using this logic, those that fiendishly push these talking points would never be able to justify the Saudi, Qatari, Jordanian, and GCC alliances with Turkey, NATO, and the United States under the same standards. These are all non-Arab countries and, aside from Turkey, are predominantly non-Muslim, let alone Sunni Muslim. Yet, the same disingenuous discourse is never applied when speaking about their foreign relations.
In geo-political terms, NATO and GCC support for armed insurgency and civil strife in the Syrian Arab Republic is trying to achieve what the 2006 Israeli war against Lebanon failed to achieve: the surrender of Damascus. Using Syria's borders with Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and Iraq, armed groups are being supplied and supported. Amongst the foreign fighters are members of Fatah Al-Islam from Lebanon and co-opted members of the Awakening Groups, which was initially funded by the U.S. when it was founded 2005, entering Syria from Al-Anbar, Iraq.
Cheetah786
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,002
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
OTTAWA: Canadian writer and researcher Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya said that the encirclement of Syria has long been in the works since 2001, and that permanent NATO presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Syrian Accountability Act are part of this initiative, adding that this roadmap is based on a 1996 Israeli document aimed at controlling Syria. The document’s name is "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm."
In an article published on the Canadian website globalresearch.ca, Nazemroaya said that the 1996 Israeli document, which included prominent U.S. policy figures as authors, calls for “rolling back Syria” in 2000 or afterward. The roadmap outlines pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon, diverting the attention of Damascus by using an anti-Syrian opposition in Lebanon, and then destabilizing Syria with the help of Turkey and other Arab countries, in addition to creating the March 14 Alliance and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
He said that the first step towards this was the war on Iraq and its balkanization, fomenting sectarian divisions as a means of conquering Syria and creating a regional alliance against it.
Nazemroaya noted that the U.S. initiated a naval build-up off the Syrian and Lebanese coasts, which is part of Washington’s standard scare tactics that it has used as a form of intimidation and psychological warfare against Iran, Syria, and the Resistance Bloc, all while the mainstream media networks controlled by Arab clients of the U.S. are focusing on the deployment of Russian naval vessels to Syria, which can be seen as a counter-move to NATO.
He also said that the city of al-Ramtha in Jordan is being used to launch attacks into Daraa and Syrian territory, adding that Turkish and Lebanese media said that France has sent its military trainers into Turkey and Lebanon to prepare conscripts against Syria, and that the so-called Free Syrian Army and other NATO-GCC front organizations are also using Turkish and Jordanian territory to stage raids into Syria, and Lebanon is also being used to smuggle weapon shipments into Syria.
Nazemroaya that there are companies that have not left Syria and are actually used to siphon money out of Syria, with the goal of preventing any money from going in, while they want to also drain the local economy as a catalyst to an internal implosion in Syria.
He said that, regarding Turkey, "Ankara has been playing a dirty game," as Turkey initially pretended to be neutral during the start of NATO’s war against Libya while it was helping the National Transitional Council in Benghazi, stressing that Erdogan's government does not care about the Syrian population but rather wants Syria to submit to Washington’s demands, adding that Turkey has been responsible for recruiting fighters against Syria.
"For several years Ankara has been silently trying to de-link Syria from Iran and to displace Iranian influence in the Middle East. Turkey has been working to promote itself and its image amongst the Arabs, but all along it has been a key component of the plans of Washington and NATO. At the same time, it has been upgrading its military capabilities in the Black Sea and on its borders with Iran and Syria," Nazemroaya wrote, adding that Turkey also agreed to upgrade Turkish bases for NATO troops.
He affirmed that it's no mere coincidence that Senator Joseph Lieberman started demanding at the start of 2011 that the Pentagon and NATO attack Syria and Iran, nor is it a coincidence that Tehran has been included in the recent Obama Administration sanctions imposed against Damascus, saying that Damascus is being targeted as a means of targeting Iran and, in broader terms, weakening Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing in the struggle for control over the Eurasian landmass.
Nazemroaya said that the U.S. leaving Iraq will cement the Resistance Bloc, dealing a major strategic blows to Israel and the U.S., stressing that Washington is working to create a new geo-political reality by eliminating Syria, in addition to activating the so-called “Coalition of the Moderate” that it created under George W. Bush Jr. and directing it against Iran, Syria, and their regional allies.
"For half a decade Washington has been directing a military arms build-up in the Middle East aimed at Iran and the Resistance Bloc," he said, noting that the U.S. sent massive arms shipments to countries in the region including Israel and started to openly discuss murdering figures, all of which constitutes a pathway towards possible military escalation that could go far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East and suck in Russia and China and their allies.
Similar threads
