How soon will Putin force Assad to step down as Syrian Dictator?

cerberus · Nov 22, 2015

Jeannette said: ↑

Let me explain what the Soviet Union was, because you have a few misconceptions. The Soviet System was created by Karl Marx a German/Jew, and that's important because the political system was not a Russian innovation. It came from Western Europe and was a product of the Enlightenment. It was a System that did not believe in the Western innovation of 'nation/states'. It was also an 'international' communal system that rejected capitalism and free enterprise and the first nation they took over was Russia.

Lenin, Trotsky and later Stalin, Khruschev, etc., wanted to eliminate all religious and cultural identities, so they could create their one world order and workers paradise. Like all utopias though, whether they be the thousand year Reich of Nazi Germany, the Islamic Caliphate of Mohamed, or the latest one being imposed by Washington and George Soros and company, they believe that the end justifies the means. So the suffering and indifference towards human life is intense...

The first people to suffer under this communist system were the Russians. The Tsar made the mistake of having a free press, so the Bolsheviks through blatant lies and deceptions, and with their propaganda in the press which was very similar to the propaganda used today on the American people, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and the rest of the Bolsheviks were able to take over Russia.

Twenty million Christians died in Russia fighting them. Twenty thousand priests, monks and bishops were killed or sent to the Gulag, and about twenty thousand churches were burned. Millions ran out of Russia, mostly the educated and nobility.

As for the rest of the world including Europe, there were communist parties. If these parties came into power, then the national boundaries were dissolved and they fell under the Soviet Union. It was not a takeover by a foreign power the way Iraq was, it was an internal takeover by an evil atheist system that many people did not want.. ...and with good reason.

As for the countries you mentioned, were they taken over by the Soviet Union, or were they taken over by their own communist parties? Here's the communist song in English: The Internationale.

Click to expand...

Touché Alpha?

Sly Lampost · Nov 22, 2015

Jeannette said: ↑

Let me explain what the Soviet Union was, because you have a few misconceptions. The Soviet System was created by Karl Marx a German/Jew, and that's important because the political system was not a Russian innovation. It came from Western Europe and was a product of the Enlightenment. It was a System that did not believe in the Western innovation of 'nation/states'. It was also an 'international' communal system that rejected capitalism and free enterprise and the first nation they took over was Russia.

Lenin, Trotsky and later Stalin, Khruschev, etc., wanted to eliminate all religious and cultural identities, so they could create their one world order and workers paradise. Like all utopias though, whether they be the thousand year Reich of Nazi Germany, the Islamic Caliphate of Mohamed, or the latest one being imposed by Washington and George Soros and company, they believe that the end justifies the means. So the suffering and indifference towards human life is intense...

The first people to suffer under this communist system were the Russians. The Tsar made the mistake of having a free press, so the Bolsheviks through blatant lies and deceptions, and with their propaganda in the press which was very similar to the propaganda used today on the American people, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and the rest of the Bolsheviks were able to take over Russia.

Twenty million Christians died in Russia fighting them. Twenty thousand priests, monks and bishops were killed or sent to the Gulag, and about twenty thousand churches were burned. Millions ran out of Russia, mostly the educated and nobility.

As for the rest of the world including Europe, there were communist parties. If these parties came into power, then the national boundaries were dissolved and they fell under the Soviet Union. It was not a takeover by a foreign power the way Iraq was, it was an internal takeover by an evil atheist system that many people did not want.. ...and with good reason.

As for the countries you mentioned, were they taken over by the Soviet Union, or were they taken over by their own communist parties? Here's the communist song in English: The Internationale.

[video=youtube;5DTbashsKic]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DTbashsKic[/video]
Click to expand...

There are other aspects too. As in the case of western bankers financing the rise of Hitler, western bankers also financed the rise of the Bolsheviks.

PREFACE
Since the early 1920s, numerous pamphlets and articles, even a few books, have sought to
forge a link between "international bankers" and "Bolshevik revolutionaries." Rarely have
these attempts been supported by hard evidence, and never have such attempts been argued
within the framework of a scientific methodology. Indeed, some of the "evidence" used in these
efforts has been fraudulent, some has been irrelevant, much cannot be checked. Examination of
the topic by academic writers has been studiously avoided; probably because the hypothesis
offends the neat dichotomy of capitalists versus Communists (and everyone knows, of course,
that these are bitter enemies). Moreover, because a great deal that has been written borders on
the absurd, a sound academic reputation could easily be wrecked on the shoals of ridicule.
Reason enough to avoid the topic.
Fortunately, the State Department Decimal File, particularly the 861.00 section, contains
extensive documentation on the hypothesized link. When the evidence in these official papers
is merged with nonofficial evidence from biographies, personal papers, and conventional
histories, a truly fascinating story emerges.
We find there was a link between some New York international bankers and many
revolutionaries, including Bolsheviks. These banking gentlemen who are here identified
had a financial stake in, and were rooting for, the success of the Bolshevik Revolution.
Who, why and for how much is the story in this book.
Antony C. Sutton
Click to expand...

Tony Sutton's book "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" is available HERE for reading or a free .pdf download. It's an important book for the glimpse it gives us in deep political events and how reality actually works - instead of the authorized and usually the pablum version of events that we are always fed.

he most interesting of these Europe-based bankers operating in behalf of the Bolsheviks was
Gregory Benenson, formerly chairman in Petrograd of the Russian and English Bank a bank
which included on its board of directors Lord Balfour (secretary of state for foreign affairs in
England) and Sir I. M. H. Amory, as well as S. H. Cripps and H. Guedalla. Benenson traveled
to Petrograd after the revolution, then on to Stockholm. He came. said one State Department
official, "bringing to my knowledge ten million rubles with him as he offered them to me at a
high price for the use of our Embassy Archangel." Benenson had an arrangement with the
Bolsheviks to exchange sixty million rubles for £1.5 million sterling.
In January 1919 the private bankers in Copenhagen that were associated with Bolshevik
institutions became alarmed by rumors that the Danish political police had marked the Soviet
legation and those persons in contact with the Bolsheviks for expulsion from Denmark. These
bankers and the legation hastily attempted to remove their funds from Danish banks in
particular, seven million rubles from the Revisionsbanken.25 Also, confidential documents
were hidden in the offices of the Martin Larsen Insurance Company.
Consequently, we can identify a pattern of assistance by capitalist bankers for the Soviet
Union. Some of these were American bankers, some were tsarist bankers who were exiled and
living in Europe, and some were European bankers. Their common objective was profit, not
ideology.
The questionable aspects of the work of these "Bolshevik bankers," as they were called, arises
from the framework of contemporary events in Russia. In 1919 French, British, and American
troops were fighting Soviet troops in the Archangel region. In one clash in April 1919, for
example, American casualties were one officer, .five men killed, and nine missing.26 Indeed, at
one point in 1919 General Tasker H. Bliss, the U.S. commander in Archangel, affirmed the
British statement that "Allied troops in the Murmansk and Archangel districts were in danger
of extermination unless they were speedily reinforced."27 Reinforcements were then on the
way under the command of Brigadier General W. P. Richardson.
In brief, while Guaranty Trust and first-rank American firms were assisting the formation of
the Soviet Bureau in New York, American troops were in conflict with Soviet troops in North
Russia. Moreover, these conflicts were daily reported in the New York Times, presumably read
by these bankers and businessmen. Further, as we shall see in chapter ten, the financial circles
that were supporting the Soviet Bureau in New York also formed in New York the "United
Americans" a virulently anti-Communist organization predicting bloody revolution, mass
starvation, and panic in the streets of New York.
Click to expand...

Ibid page 90

Imagine that, supporting both sides, financing both sides and warring with both sides. Well, I never...

Sly Lampost · Nov 23, 2015

An interesting article below. It looks like the US precondition that "Assad must go" is being rethought in the light of Paris - and the recent adlib 35 minute meeting between Obama and Putin underscored this.

Rethinking ‘Assad Must Go’ Slogan
November 22, 2015

Official Washington’s “Assad must go!” slogan is threatening to destroy hopes for a political settlement of the horrific Syrian conflict and for an end to the chaos cascading from it – finally prompting some U.S. officials to rethink the “group think,” as Gareth Porter reported for Middle East Eye.

By Gareth Porter

In the wake of the ISIS terrorist attack on Paris, President Barack Obama declared that his administration has the right strategy on ISIS and will “see it through.” But the administration is already shifting its policy to cooperate more closely with the Russians on Syria, and an influential former senior intelligence official has suggested that the administration needs to give more weight to the Assad government and army as the main barrier to ISIS and other jihadist forces in Syria.

Obama’s Europeans allies as well as U.S. national security officials have urged the United State to downgrade the official U.S. aim of achieving the departure of President Bashar al-Assad from Syria in the international negotiations begun last month and continued last weekend. Such a shift in policy, however, would make the contradictions between the U.S. interests and those of the Saudis, who continue to support jihadist forces fighting with al-Qaeda’s Syria branch, al-Nusra Front, increasingly clear.

Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.
Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.
Russia had proposed to the United States in September that the United States and Russia share intelligence on ISIS (also known as ISIL, Islamic State and Daesh) and exchange military delegations to coordinate on joint steps against ISIS. The initial Obama administration response was to reject either intelligence sharing or joint planning with Russia on Syria out of hand.

The reasoning was that the Russians were engaged primarily, if not exclusively, to shore up the Assad regime, which was unacceptable to Washington. Secretary of State John Kerry declared on Oct. 1: “What is important is Russia has to not be engaged in any activities against anybody but ISIL. That’s clear. We have made that very clear.”

But that was before Paris. The fallout from that attack has changed the political vectors pushing and pulling Obama administration policy. The most obvious shift came two days after the attacks and just hours after Obama announced new intelligence arrangements with France.

CIA Director John Brennan reversed the earlier U.S. decision to reject intelligence sharing with Russia on Islamic State. Revealing that he had had several conversations with his Russian counterpart since the beginning of Russia’s air offensive in Syria, Brennan said the ISIS threat “demands” an “unprecedented level of cooperation” among international intelligence services. Brennan said he and his Russian counterpart had begun exchanging intelligence focused primarily on the flow of terrorists from Russia into Iraq and Syria but that now U.S.-Russian cooperation needed to be “enhanced”.

At the G-20 summit in Antalya, Turkey on Nov. 15-16, Obama acknowledged for the first time in his meeting with Putin that Russia was indeed combating ISIS, according to a White House official. In fact, the Russians had been hitting ISIS targets regularly during October, including what it said was a command center in the ISIS capital, Raqqa. The Obama administration had refused to acknowledge that fact in October and instead focused on the Russian targeting of non-ISIS groups. But the White House press leak about the Obama-Putin conversation did not repeat that complaint.

The issue of whether Assad must go as part of a settlement has been a fixture of U.S. Syria policy ever since 2011, although it has now been modified to allow the Syrian president to stay in power for a period of six months as part of a settlement. But the Paris attacks may well be sparking new debate within the Obama administration on whether that demand makes sense.

In an interview with CBS News on Nov. 15, the former deputy director of the CIA, Michael Morell, suggested that the exclusion of Assad may need to be revised. “I do think the question of whether President Assad needs to go or whether he is part of the solution here, we need to look at it again,” Morell said. “Clearly he’s part of the problem. But he may also be part of the solution.”

It is not likely that Morell, who was acting CIA director twice in 2011 and again from 2012 to 2013, was merely reflecting a personal view on the matter. Statements by U.S. intelligence officials since 2012 have emphasized the importance of the Syrian administration and military as the primary buttress against both ISIS and al-Qaeda and its jihadist allies seizing power in the country – a point that the Obama and Kerry chose not to make. Since the “moderate” forces have all but disappeared in late 2014 and early 2015, and al-Qaeda and it jihadist allies have become the only rivals to Islamic State, that point became even more critical.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said this week, “I cannot agree with the logic that Assad is the cause of everything” in Syria. That contrasts with John Kerry’s argument that unless Assad leaves Syria, “this war will not end.”

But Kerry’s position is based on the assumption that the major forces fighting against the regime would end the war and enter into peaceful competition if Assad could be induced to leave. In reality, of course, those forces are committed to using force to achieve the destruction of the old “secular” political order in Syria and establish an extremist conservative Islamic State.

The issue of whether to continue to demand Assad’s departure arises just as the UN peace negotiations process on Syria – meaning negotiations among the outside powers intervening in the conflict – begin a new and highly political phase.

British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond has revealed that the next phase will turn on bargaining among the international sponsors of anti-Assad groups about who would be allowed to join a new government. Those decisions, in turn, would depend on which of the groups are deemed by the foreign sponsors of those very groups to be “terrorists” and which are deemed acceptable.

As Hammond acknowledges, the Saudis are certainly not going to agree to call Ahrar al-Sham or other extremist jihadist groups allied with it and al-Nusra “terrorists.” They may have to give up al-Nusra Front, which has expressed support for the Islamic State terrorist assault on Paris.

Unless Obama is prepared to face a rupture in the U.S. alliance with the Sunni Gulf Sheikdoms over the issue, the result will be that the very groups committed to overthrowing the remnants of the old order by force will be invited by the United States and its Gulf allies to take key positions in the post-Assad government. It’s the right time for Obama to rethink the administration’s policy toward both Assad and his jihadist foes.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. [This story originally appeared at Middle East Eye,
Click to expand...

Source

Yetzerhara · Nov 23, 2015

AboveAlpha said: ↑

Well....it looks like Putin is going to force this sooner than I thought.

I was thinking that Putin would wait until a new President is in office but it now looks like the Russian economy is failing too fast for Putin to wait that long for U.S. Help and it seems that Putin will force Assad to step down as the Syrian leader probably by as early as April of 2016.

The U.S. and Russia are already discussing the removal of Assad and it's basically a DONE DEAL.

Now the only thing that needs to be worked out is what Russia will get in return as far as U.S. economic help to prevent the total collapse of the Russian economy.

One of the aspects of this deal will probably be a promise by the U.S. to at the very least slow down U.S. Oil Production as the U.S. surpassed Russia to become the worlds largest producer of oil and high U.S. and Canadian Oil Production is responsible for the current low oil prices ans subsequent Russian economic collapse.

Assad will be forced by Putin to step down....this much is now certain.

When is the question.

AboveAlpha
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you and leave it at that. Smile.

Yetzerhara · Nov 23, 2015

AboveAlpha said: ↑

I have no crystal ball.

This is what will happen.

Putin has already made several comments about free and fair elections in Syria and it's just a matter of time before Assad is forced to step down.

Russia going into Syria was never about cementing Assad's rule.

It's all about Russia.

AboveAlpha
Click to expand...

Lol sure you do. Its called a brain.

Jeannette · Nov 23, 2015

Sly Lampost said: ↑

There are other aspects too. As in the case of western bankers financing the rise of Hitler, western bankers also financed the rise of the Bolsheviks.

Tony Sutton's book "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" is available HERE for reading or a free .pdf download. It's an important book for the glimpse it gives us in deep political events and how reality actually works - instead of the authorized and usually the pablum version of events that we are always fed.

Ibid page 90

Imagine that, supporting both sides, financing both sides and warring with both sides. Well, I never...
Click to expand...

Seems like a bunch of confused frustrated people who are always trying to form a 'utopian' world system, based on one's own knowledge, which again is based on one's own historical experiences and grievances... so it's highly limited.

..The result of course is tragedy, tragedy and more tragedy. An example today is George Soros, with his involvement not only in regime changes through NGO's, but also in the refugee crises.

Iranian Monitor · Nov 23, 2015

In today's meeting between Putin and Iran's Supreme Leader, Iran's Supreme Leader warned Putin that the US is trying to get what it could not win on the battlefield, through the so-called peace talks and that Russia should be vigilante that these talks not be used by the US to achieve their objectives (i.e., remove Assad and make sure Syria is no longer part of the axis of resistance). Putin responded by saying that Russia would not stab its friends in the back and indicated Russia would stand firm on these issues.

From what I have read and from what I have seen reported, Putin's visit to Iran was positive in reducing some of the suspicions and worries that had recently emerged from some statements and comments attributed to the Russians regarding Syria.

Jeannette · Nov 23, 2015

Iranian Monitor said: ↑

In today's meeting between Putin and Iran's Supreme Leader, Iran's Supreme Leader warned Putin that the US is trying to get what it could not win on the battlefield, through the so-called peace talks and that Russia should be vigilante that these talks not be used by the US to achieve their objectives (i.e., remove Assad and make sure Syria is no longer part of the axis of resistance). Putin responded by saying that Russia would not stab its friends in the back and indicated Russia would stand firm on these issues.

From what I have read and from what I have seen reported, Putin's visit to Iran was positive in reducing some of the suspicions and worries that had recently emerged from some statements and comments attributed to the Russians regarding Syria.
Click to expand...

Vladimir Putin wants the world to realize that he sincerely believes in democracy, and he is not supporting certain personalities because it is in the interest of Russia to do so. When Putin or a government official says something to that affect in regard to Assad, it is misinterpreted either deliberately by the press, or because of wishful thinking. Their ignorance is appalling.

There is another even stronger reason why Putin will always back Assad, and that is the policy the US has of intervening and trying to split up nations. This is a threat to Russia's very existence, and for this reason, Russia and China will always support a legal government no matter who is in charge. Every vote in the UN by those two countries, should be taken in that context.

As I have stated before, there is no way Putin will stop backing Assad unless he is voted out legally by the people, and that could only happen through ethnic cleansing, or genocide...and it is something Putin will never allow.

Ukraine was a wake up call to Vladimir Putin as to the means and methods used by Washington to achieve its ends.

Jeannette · Nov 23, 2015

AboveAlpha said: ↑

If anything Putin has shown he despises anything Islamic.

He might say this or that but when it comes right down to it....Putin uses them as pawns.

AboveAlpha
Click to expand...

Tell that to Kadyrov.

My Son! My Son!

Kiwi33 · Nov 23, 2015

Jeannette said: ↑

Vladimir Putin wants the world to realize that he sincerely believes in democracy, and he is not supporting certain personalities because it is in the interest of Russia to do so. When Putin or a government official says something to that affect in regard to Assad, it is misinterpreted either deliberately by the press, or because of wishful thinking. Their ignorance is appalling.

There is another even stronger reason why Putin will always back Assad, and that is the policy the US has of intervening and trying to split up nations. This is a threat to Russia's very existence, and for this reason, Russia and China will always support a legal government no matter who is in charge. Every vote in the UN by those two countries, should be taken in that context.

As I have stated before, there is no way Putin will stop backing Assad unless he is voted out legally by the people, and that could only happen through ethnic cleansing, or genocide...and it is something Putin will never allow.

Ukraine was a wake up call to Vladimir Putin as to the means and methods used by Washington to achieve its ends.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Western mass media constantly lie about Assad. But it is sure many people in the West also know and understand, Assad's army didn't attack the European capitals, didn't decapitate the head of the American journalists. Evil it is ISIS for the West and Russia. Assad only who fights - most productively with ISIS it is the fact. We will hope that the western politicians will change the attitude towards Assad to the best.

Ivan88 · Nov 24, 2015

The biggest retards are the biggest hypocrits. They aggresively and rudely put their noses into other people's lives.

Ivan88 · Nov 24, 2015

Jeannette said: ↑

Vladimir Putin wants the world to realize that he sincerely believes in democracy,

Click to expand...

Well since the US is the world's biggest Marxist democracy, it is fitting for the US to send Trotskyite death trains to any place that doesn't vote the way the US wants.

AboveAlpha · Nov 24, 2015

Woogs said: ↑

Only if by 'resolving the current crisis' you mean turning Syria into a jihadi wonderland, as Libya was.

Turning sovereign countries into FUBAR (*)(*)(*)(*)holes is the American idea of resolving crises.

Putin knows this.
Click to expand...

There is a much bigger picture to all this.

Assad will be removed.

Then the U.S., Russia and NATO along with the Arab League will have to purge the FSA of Sunni Extremists.

AboveAlpha

AboveAlpha · Nov 24, 2015

cerberus said: ↑

Out of curiosity, Alpha, why do you believe he should be?
Click to expand...

The removal of Assad is key to getting the Arab League on board to fight the ISIS.

Syria is over 70% Sunni.

Assad is Shia Alawite.

We remove Assad....the U.S., Russia and NATO along with the U.N. help the Syrian's write a new Syrian Constitution and hold REAL free and fair elections.

This will get the Sunni Arab nations on board to combat the ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other Sunni Extremists Groups.

If they allowed my plan to work we would have peace with Israel and Palestine in 6 months...that is to cut off all International monetary aid to both sides.....the U.S. is fully capable of doing this.

We are capable of stopping all aid from coming in once Assad is gone as Assad is the one who disseminates all non-western aid to Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad....and Iran has stopped sending aid to Assad.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Ivan88 said: ↑

Well since the US is the world's biggest Marxist democracy, it is fitting for the US to send Trotskyite death trains to any place that doesn't vote the way the US wants.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!

The U.S???

A Marxist Democracy!!!????

That doesn't even make sense!!! LOL!!

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Kiwi33 said: ↑

Yes, the Western mass media constantly lie about Assad. But it is sure many people in the West also know and understand, Assad's army didn't attack the European capitals, didn't decapitate the head of the American journalists. Evil it is ISIS for the West and Russia. Assad only who fights - most productively with ISIS it is the fact. We will hope that the western politicians will change the attitude towards Assad to the best.
Click to expand...

Assad is responsible for tens to perhaps over 100,000 deaths of innocent civilian's in Syria.

AboveAlpha

Log in or Sign up

How soon will Putin force Assad to step down as Syrian Dictator?

cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

Sly Lampost New Member

Sly Lampost New Member

Yetzerhara Banned

Yetzerhara Banned

Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

Kiwi33 New Member

Ivan88 Well-Known Member

Ivan88 Well-Known Member

AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

How soon will Putin force Assad to step down as Syrian Dictator?

cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

Sly Lampost New Member

Sly Lampost New Member

Yetzerhara Banned

Yetzerhara Banned

Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

Kiwi33 New Member

Ivan88 Well-Known Member

Ivan88 Well-Known Member

AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches