If America Stopped Destroying The World, The Bad Guys Might Win

I'm not sure that the situation would be as dangerous as it is now with the moron/clown Trump allowing the worst of the military/industrial/intelligence/corporate complex to run free but if Libya is any indication it may not have been much better.

Libya was probably one of the most stable, prosperous nations in North Africa now look at it. And who got all those weapons from Libya's armories? Boko Haram and al Shabaab.

So point taken! More dangerous than Bolton and Pompeo? Don't think so. But with Clinton we would have been facing another corrupt lackie of the corporate state.

 

You should fact check this narrative (Bold). At least in one case where there was a protest - Islamist Insurgents started shooting the police who were there to ensure a peaceful protest.. As with your comment in relation to the white helmets (Al Nusra through and through) false flags in Syria were the rule rather than the exception.


I have been following this conflict since before armed insurgency. A friend of mine (who left Syria when he was around 19 and went back 30 years later to reunite with family and do some business - he opened up a "chicken farm" - funny stuff) had returned from Syria - this was during the protest movement.

We sat and had a beer and I asked him what was going on over there. He said that the people of Syria did not like Assad much and want some reforms - but, the extremists - that is another story. They hate the extremists - especially the Christians who are worried that they will be persecuted.

So I started following the situation - especially after armed insurgency broke out in late 2011. The protest movement was peaceful in the beginning. The movement however was quickly taken over by the extremists who started creating havoc - doing major violence - and telling the Christians to either join the protest movement or leave the country.

This is a very insightful article from just prior to armed insurrection breaking out en masse.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/...om-anti-government-protestors-in-syria-50104/

So these folks are what - 3 years later in 2014 - the Obama administration called "moderate rebels". This was after arming and supporting Al Qaeda/Al Nusra and various other salafist groups of the same ilk - who along with foreign Jihadists went on to coalesce and form the modern incarnation of ISIS - an Islamic State - in 2013.

The false narratives and propaganda in relation to Syria were on a level I have never seen before. The "moderate rebel lie" is just one example. The documentary in relation to the white helmets .. another. History Channel "the rise of ISIS" another. Pure propaganda.

The MSM - with respect to Syria was just a propaganda arm of the State - in the most obscene way. Very disturbing.

 

There is no doubt that the level of propaganda we are seeing is so over the top that it is almost unbearable to watch TV these days. On an unrelated topic, I was just watching the headlines briefly yesterday to get news of what happened with the Brexit vote when CNN put some yammering idiot talking head on the screen who tried to tell us that Brexit was all part of Vladimir Putin's plan to destabilize the west. I could literally not believe what I was hearing.

Any one who takes the corporate media on both sides of the spectrum seriously is really subjected to a very distorted view of the world which is why you have to do so much fact-checking on anything these days.

Thanks for the article. I will definitely read it. There is no doubt in my mind that the moderate rebels or FSA were made up in large part of al qaeda linked operatives and militias funded in large part by Saudi Arabia and the US among other players in a deliberate attempt to bring down Assad.

But there is no doubt there was a crackdown and arrests and even torture of groups other than the extremists:

"Small peaceful protests started on 26 January 2011 in Syria and escalated to an ongoing internal conflict. The wave of Arab uprisings that began with the Tunisian revolution of January 2011 reached Syria in mid-March, when residents of the small southern town of Dara’a took to the streets to protest the torture of students who had put up anti-government graffiti. The unrest spread to other parts of the country. Protesters demand reforms, the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad, allowing political parties, equal rights for Kurds, and broad political freedoms, such as freedom of the press, speech and assembly. The Syrian government has made several concessions, though widely considered trivial by protesters. On 21 April, the government formally declared the repeal of an emergency law that had been in place since 1963 and which allowed the government sweeping authority to suspend constitutional rights. The same month the Syrian government launched the first of what became a series of crackdowns, sending tanks into restive cities as security forces opened fire on demonstrators. Security forces used tanks and snipers to force people off the streets. Water and electricity were shut off and security forces began confiscating flour and food in particularly restive areas. The conflict is complicated by Syria’s ethnic divisions. The Assads and much of the nation’s elite, especially the military's, belong to the Alawite sect (Nuṣayrī), a small minority in a majority Sunni country. By October, estimates for the death toll ranged above 2,900, and human rights groups said that well over 10,000 people had been arrested. Syrian dissidents formally established the Syrian National Council which included representatives from the Damascus Declaration group, a pro-democracy network; the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamic political party; various Kurdish factions; the Local Coordination Committees, a group that helps organize and document protests; and other independent and tribal figures."

https://guides.library.cornell.edu/arab_spring/Syria

Thanks for the link though. Funny I had similar experiences to you during the Iraq war. My barber back then was an Iraqi immigrant and he and his family used to tell me about life in Baghdad under Saddam. Baghdad was a prosperous, cosmopolitan city with vibrant culture and fairly open tolerance for religion and women. As long as you didn't cause trouble for the regime, you could have a pretty good life there.

Now look at it thanks to foreign intervention.

I think you could make a similar case for Syria.

 

That the FSA included Al Nusra and ISIS is a proven fact.
https://arretsurinfo.ch/there-is-no-fsa-there-is-only-al-qaeda/
https://worldaffairs.blog/2017/06/24/proof-that-moderate-rebels-al-qaeda-and-isis/

And here is VP-Biden (ooops) contradicting Obama's "Moderate Rebel Lie":

https://mideastshuffle.com/2014/10/04/biden-turks-saudis-uae-funded-and-armed-al-nusra-and-al-qaeda/

I have many more links.

That the kids were captured and beaten up by some overzealous police is unfortunate. At the same time this is not rural America either.
That this was the major cause of massive protests is suspect.

The narrative you post is suspect for a number of reasons.
1) it tries to portray the Muslim Brotherhood as Moderate. The MB are not moderates by any stretch of the imagination. They are "Islamists"= want sharia to be the law of the land = want to force their extremist Sunni-Salafi religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law). That they are averse to Jihad is simply not true (not that it matters to be honest). Initially the MB wanted to use political -non violent means to achieve its sick and depraved agenda - it was taken over - or at least many factions were - by more hardline Islamists.

That the article uses the term banned Islamic Political Party - in referring to the Syrian MB is not an oversight. It is an intentional misrepresentation. The correct term is "Islamist" not "Islamic" - massive and significant difference. Seeing this one might as well stop reading because either the author is an idiot or is being intending to mislead - and I doubt the former.

2) why is this narrative mentioning the Kurds ? The Kurds were not part of the rebel opposition

3) The article then goes on to try to portray the Rebel opposition as speaking for the Majority .. lending to the false narrative that this was a civil war rather than an armed insurrection. The Author does this by trying by casting the Alawite minority against the Sunni Majority.

While it is true that the majority of Syrian's consider themselves Sunni .. not all Sunni's are Islamist. 50% of Assads regular army is Sunni.

While it is true that virtually all of the rebels are Sunni - what is also true is that they are all Islamist's. The whole call to Jihad in Syria was to make Sharia the law of the land... FULL STOP.

Syria is a "Secular" Muslim nation. Say what you like about Assad but, there was no strict sharia. Women could drive cars and did not need permission from a man to be educated (unlike in El Saud). Women wore skirts and proper bathing suits. There was no stoning folks for adultery and apostasy. There were Christian Churches and Assad even had Christian Generals in his army. There was relative freedom of religion. There was drinking alcohol and dancing to in bars .. and so on.

This is what the people of Syria fighting for Assad were fighting to keep. This is why they fight. They want to keep their freedoms. The Islamist's want to take these freedoms away.

Throughout Syria you had all kinds of hardline Islamist groups who did not like this kind of society and wanted Sharia Theocracy. By October things were getting rather crazy .. so yeah .. what would you do ?

The article seems to implicate Assad for the "death toll" during this time period which is complete BS.

The article does not give any of the necessary particulars required to understand the situation.

 

Re:

It seems like the same Arab nations who funded opposition to Assad are now eager to re-establish relations to him.(1)

I know that Assad's younger brother has proven to be a brutal individual and infamous for repressive human rights violations but there's just something about Bashar Assad & the fact that he was previously an M.D. in London that sets him apart from other regional & international thugs(2).

You could very easily be right and becoming leader of Syria could have changed someone who was praised by co-workers & fellow students as a kind and competent M.D.
I simply don't know for sure as his father was in power the last time I was in Syria & I'm reluctant to trust Western MSM.

Thanks,




(1) "In Major Reversal, Arab Nations Warming to Syria’s Assad"
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/arab-nations-warming-to-syria-s-assad-1.6846239
EXCERPT "Gulf Arab nations, once the main backers of rebels trying to oust Assad, are lining up to reopen their embassies in Syria"CONTINUED



(2) "Mr. Soft Heart or Brutal Tyrant? Anti-Assad Narrative Falls Apart at Seams"
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201511031029549034-assad-high-public-support-syria-elections/
EXCERPT "Quite a number of Syrians have criticized President Assad, but not in the manner of the Western media. Many in Syria regard him as too soft, leading to the name 'Mr. Soft Heart'," the academic remarked."CONTINUED

 

Mods: Can this thread be moved to the conspiracy theory section? This isn't news, this is black ops/Illuminati level crap.

 

Saddam was plenty 'vile' and is comparable to Assad in that respect (fellow Ba'athists). Pinochet & Batista aren't in the same class. Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians out of a population of 18 million and will leave his nation in ruins. When he came to power he had an opportunity to unwind the legacy of brutal repression left by his father and create a nation that could exist without the constant threat of massive state violence to keep it all together. He failed to reform, so when the winds of change struck the region his regime was left only with force.

Despite being the evil monster left wingers scare their kids with, Pinochet's regime killed about 3000 people (from a 1973 population of 10 mill) in 17 years, most in the first 2 years. He also saved an economy in freefall & reduced poverty to a third of its 1973 levels. I work with a bunch of Chileans who have all manner of perspectives. It is fair to say Pinochet is unloved as are many aspects of hsi government, but his rule is not seen as some hell on earth. He was a bad man who did evil things, but no Assad. It makes for an interesting comparison with Maduro's Venezuela.

Batista may even have been less brutal than Pinochet, though also less effective at running things. At various times Batista was an elected leader and a dictator. Again, not a good man, but not in the Assad category.

If you are after future comparisons to Assad among US backed dictators I would suggest Yahya Khan in Pakistan - who carried out the mass murder in East Pakistan, or Soeharto in Indonesia, who oversaw the mass murder of Communists (and others) in 1966-7 & then killed off a third of the population of East Timor during the 70s & 80s. These gents are much more in the mould of Assad, though Soeharto did at least leave a positive legacy of economic growth & development (not in E.Timor, though). You can also throw in Ephraim Rios Montt of Guatemala. In power for about two years, killed off about 30,000 - ten times Pinochet. For some reason he never gets a mention.

Of course, if you want the really nasty ones you'll have to go for Russian & Chinese client states. The comrades always did have a flair for big body counts.

 

You Say that I am spinning a narrative while I am sort of agreeing with you that the demonization of Assad in the west is somewhat contrived as an excuse for regime change and that foreign influences began flooding into the country in attempt to overthrow him. But not all militias were there trying to bring in Sharia. That was mostly ISIS as it evolved. There were a whole range of militias and terror organization operating in Syria including Hezbollah among others.

However to suggest that Assad is a "big softy" as has been said on this thread or that he did try to put down with tanks and snipers what started out as a peaceful protest by farmers is a bit rich. Don't forget that the original demonstrations turned into pro-democracy rallies that demanded reform.

I quoted that article for perspective and I'm not going to try to defend it point by point but this was hardly the only source of reporting for the crackdown on protesters. I have just been re-reading reports from 2011 and groups as diverse as Human Rights Watch and the National Organization for Human rights were all reporting the same thing. Even Russia was calling for an end to the violence:

"Emissaries from India, Brazil and South Africa are also due in Damascus to appeal for an end to the crackdown and the introduction of genuine democratic reforms. All three have so far been reticent about stronger UN action against Syria.

Activists in Damascus said they were drawing hope from the escalation of protests and the ratcheting up of international pressure on Assad. But none said they could envisage the way in which the regime would fall.

Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday the UN security council should press Syria to comply with its demand to end attacks against peaceful protesters.

"President Bashar al-Assad needs to hear loud and clear that the security council will not tolerate such contempt for its united call for Syria to change course," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.

Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said "precedence should be given to ending the violence and continuing efforts to effect profound political and socioeconomic changes in Syria without delay".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/09/syria-protest-troops-attack-democracy-demonstrators

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nst-assad-rule-in-syria-idUSTRE72N2MC20110325

But yes, I do agree that Assad has large support among Alawites and that the moderate rebels were a figment of some peoples imagination as the war really progressed and foreign intervention took the place of protest.

 

The 3,000 figure for Pinochet is outdated. The CBC estimates at least 40,000 missing or disappeared.

This is a brief summary of Batista's gangster regime:

https://havanatimes.org/?p=123355

But yes, I threw out those two off the top of my head to make a point but you are right, Suharto was really nasty.

I would suggest that American backed, school of the Americas dictators have a pretty bad record too though. And don't forget, I;ve seen estimates that close to a million Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion in 2003 - just for perspective of course.

 

I have never claimed that Assad is some cherub - That is simply not the case. Heck .. after 911 we sent suspected Al Qaeda affiliates (some of whom turned out to be innocent) to Assad for Torture. (Extra-Ordinary Rendition) - as you state however, much of the anti Assad propaganda is just that. The article "Syria-protest troops attack democracy demonstrators" is from Aug 11 - when things were getting rather heated in Syria - and I would have to do a more in depth study of what happened there to comment further - other than to say - it is not like the IDF (Israel) is not killing loads of protesters for far less.

Where you have ingested way to much Establishment propaganda is your buying into the "Moderate rebel Lie".

Did you not read the links I gave you ? Would you like more ? or more explanation.

https://ahtribune.com/in-depth/509-robert-ford.html

Or - how about from a Declassified Memo from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) shortly after the war started.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...12-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf


Same thing from the NY-Times

This article was from 2013 - prior to our dog (ISIS) going off its leash and going into Iraq. This necessitated Obama's "Moderate Rebel Lie".
The NY-Times then promptly forgot its previous reporting.

This was the situation in Syria - not in August - but in May 2011.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/...om-anti-government-protestors-in-syria-50104/

You should read the entire article - and consider the source. The protests in the beginning were being conducted by "moderates" and they were peaceful. The protest movement was then taken over by hard line Islamist's.

Again - this is the situation in May. August ? the time when your article was written. Those were not "moderate" protesters - that I can tell you without even doing any research. Those were hard line radical Islamists - the folks that were running around killing Christians and committing other acts of violence and terror.

This is from a rather Pro Western Source.. and he couches his words appropriately
Syria’s ‘moderates’ have disappeared... and there are no good guys
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...ared-and-there-are-no-good-guys-a6679406.html

I can go on - and on - and on- and on. Just let me know when to stop

 

The 3000 figure is still the official figure for deaths & disappearances. The 40,000 figure is for 'victims', which includes the 3,000 as well as people arrested, tortured etc.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/chile-dictatorship-victim-toll-bumped-to-40-018-1.998542

The figures in that article may be correct, but given the little blurb by the author at the end I am extremely suspicious. Batista was undoubtedly a bad guy, but not in Assad's league.

I've seen estimates that Islam has killed over 230 million people & that the death toll from Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao etc was double what it likely was. I have also seen 'estimates' from a member of this board that only a few hundred thousand Jews died in the holocaust. Made up figures are the lifeblood of the internet and assigning responsibility for them to the disliked nation/group of your choice pretty much mandatory.

Thus America invading Iraq means America is responsible for all Iraqi deaths, while North Vietnam invading Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam....also means America is responsible for all those deaths. Similarly any US links to militants in Syria, no matter how tenuous, means America is responsible for all those deaths, while Russian & Chinese backing of Nth Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge & the Pathet Lao.....also means America is responsible for all those deaths.

People like to choose their own realities.