That is a news channel on youtube. It is just as "reputable" as any you can provide.

For The Record


I am not Trolling

I vaguely remember a thread I created about Syria a few weeks back that got completely deleted for reasons completely unknown to me. I thought this thread about Syria stood a better chance, and now I'm being asked to "stop trolling."

Very interesting.

If you look at this title:


Obama authorizes secret CIA support for Syrian rebels"

I wonder why it says "secret" CIA support. Isn't the CIA always doing "secret" stuff?

Anyway since when does the CIA need "authorization" (secret or otherwise) from a mere corporate president to do its dirty work?

Now, google the title and see how many articles on that you will find.

Taken from a previous post:

"With the rebels now possessing tanks – United Nations observers did not have information on how many, or where they might be deployed – the conflict seems to be moving ever further away from the six-point plan for peace outlined by Kofi Annan, the special Syria envoy, whose plan seems increasingly irrelevant. Instead of steps toward a cease-fire, both sides appear to be rushing into the breach of civil war."

Now if you watch this news/propaganda video, and listen to it, it will claim that tanks and shelling "by Assad's forces" are blowing up civilians etc.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=uYCC6YP6ato


So who really has the heavy artillery or tanks? Who really is blowing up who? How easy would it be to completely lie about what is going on over there?

Why should we believe either side?

Why would Assad blow up innocent civilians? That makes NO SENSE AT ALL. It would only serve to invite more support for the rebels.

The only thing that actually makes sense is that a third outside force is attempting a coup in Syria.



Who is killing who and why?
It is really hard to tell.

There have also been reports or rumors that the rebels (who ever they are) may be getting help from "Al-Qaeda." (a buzz word for "terrorist.)
and now the rebels are getting help from CIA forces.

mmmm...

So are "Al-Qaeda" and the CIA supposedly now working together to help the rebels?




(Or does Al Qaeda = CIA )

I posted this thread for some intelligent discussion of the future of Syria and all I've seen are posts that are opinionated, bigoted, unfounded, and off topic. The thread has been hijacked by a minority to serve their own purposes based on their own myopic prejudices.

For the record, I had no idea why the previous thread disappeared either, and I too hoped this thread wouldn't be hijacked by the usual pack, but alas, it was not to be. I ask the mods to lock or delete this thread, as it is futile to pursue this and stay on topic.

Russia Today again. Why not go to Press2 as well?

I have had a Thread locked down as well two days ago and you were the last one to post on it...very interesting.

Jeannie offered you a deal to stay out of each others threads.

I make you the same offer...You stay out of my threads and I will gladly stay out of yours.. Deal?

Ipso facto it is my fault? As for the rest, it hardly warrants a response.

A simple Yes or No will Suffice

If you are really interested in knowing what the "future" of Syria is, I can tell you.

The CIA is conducting a coup which will attempt to replace Assad.

Just like they did in Iraq.

Its pretty simple really.

No, that scenario ignores Russian, Iranian & Chinese influence. Try to understand the role Russia have been playing in this conflict.

Let Russia Show the Way on Syria

By EDWARD BURKE

Published: June 11, 2012


Like him or loathe him over his stance on Syria, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, is a better diplomat than most. Experience counts, and Lavrov has spent almost three decades at the United Nations. As a former senior Soviet diplomat and Russia’s permanent representative to the Security Council in the lead-up to the Iraq war, he has tenaciously resisted Western military intervention over three decades in countries where Russia’s interests were at stake. On Syria he is marshaling his arguments much more carefully than his Western counterparts.

On Syria, Lavrov is a realist in the Kissinger mold. He is acting on behalf of a Kremlin whose diplomatic relations are almost completely predicated on advancing Russian power. Russia is deeply concerned about the escalating threat to its influence in Syria — its only major ally in Arab Mediterranean.

But Moscow also knows that the writing is on the wall for the Assad regime and that its slow demise will likely precipitate an increasingly deadly civil war that will damage Russian interests.

To avoid this outcome, Russia has decided that the best option is to find a balance between the regime and the opposition that allows Moscow’s influence to endure. Like the Sicilian prince in Lampedusa’s novel “The Leopard” the people in the Kremlin know that “if we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.”

Russia is also gravely concerned at the rise of jihadist groups in Syria and Lebanon as a result of the growing security vacuum in Syria. Hence, Moscow has called for an international conference to try to bring about a transition process that reverses Syria’s descent into chaos.

Even such unlikely bedfellows as Israel and Iran are likely to welcome a Russian conference on Syria. Tehran knows that it could be dragged into a proxy war in Lebanon that could irreparably damage its nuclear talks with the West, risking a military attack by the United States.

Israel is increasingly alarmed at the radicalization of Syria’s youth, bellicose opposition rhetoric regarding the Golan Heights, and the prospect of Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons falling into the hands of extremists. The enemy you know may be better than a failed state that is home to extremist nonstate actors. Nor is the descent of Lebanon into civil war in Israel’s interests — a takeover by the militarily superior Hezbollah militia would prompt calls for a re-invasion of Lebanon, requiring another prolonged Israeli occupation.

Moscow may not be motivated by international altruism, but it is right to criticize the West for not having any political plan for Syria. In several draft Security Council resolutions, rejected by Russia and China, the West has demanded that the Syrian security forces confine themselves to barracks. Lavrov has posed the question: Who would take their place to prevent even worse sectarian violence as victims of the regime seek revenge against their many neighbors who supported Assad? Western diplomats do not have an answer.

Such a lack of attention to detail from the West is hindering a diplomatic solution to Syria’s conflict. Western diplomats and officials have told Kofi Annan, the former U.N. secretary general, to negotiate a cease-fire with Syria and to establish a dialogue aimed at “political transition,” but they have given him few hints as to exactly what such a transition should look like. There are also currently no inducements for the regime to change its behavior.

The West should put aside its skepticism: Clear-eyed thinking on a realistic engagement with the Syrian regime is required. Given the entrenched position of the regime, the West cannot expect an immediate happy outcome to such a transition process; the current Syrian military leadership will not give up its power over all aspects of domestic and foreign policy. But it may allow its future influence and discretion to be checked by an elected Parliament and a reformed judicial system.

If the regime commits itself to free and fair elections, the West should suspend some economic sanctions. An elected Parliament should then draft a new constitution. In the same way as Turkey’s democratic transition took time, an initial balancing between the president, the military and a democratically elected Parliament in Syria is probably the best that can be hoped for in the short-term.

How and when to bring war criminals to justice will remain a question that Syrians will have to grapple with over a longer period of time.

An attempt by Russia to negotiate a political transition in Syria should be welcomed. Moscow has made it clear that its future relations are not tied to the power status quo in Damascus.

A phased, compromise transition between the government and opposition groups is probably the only way to avoid worse chaos in the future. This does not mean offering a carte blanche to a brutal regime that has engaged in a litany of appalling war crimes. But neither the Syrian people nor the West can afford to let the current trend continue: There is too much at stake in terms of lives and strategic interest. It is time for some diplomacy based on realism rather than wishful thinking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/opinion/let-russia-show-the-way-on-syria.html

How does he know that the west does not have any political plan?

Well, think about it. The Russians would have their agents throughout the region, and so would the other nations with interests in this conflict.

Now, if the CIA were hoping to install a regime of their choice, the Russians would know this and they would capitalise on this within the Security Council. You can also imagine the diplomatic outcry from Tehran.

The fact that this has not occurred tends to make the CIA theory a little tendentious.

Actually, I looked into that and found your accusation to be incorrect.

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/333123?page=11

What do you suppose Abdul Halim Khaddam, and his henchmen are up to?
I think there is a group that wants back in, and may have something going on with the CIA. That's just a wild guess.


*********************************************

They claim they want to install a "democracy."

***********************************************


On January 14, 2006, Abdul Halim Khaddam announced he would form a government-in-exile that would take over power when the government of President Bashar Al Assad collapsed. He stated that he did not want to not want to oust the regime by military coup. A coup is the most dangerous type of reform, he said, “I am working to create the right atmosphere for the Syrian people to topple the regime.”

Khaddam expected the Syrian people to topple the Assad regime in 2006.

So What happened to his planned government-in-exile idea?

When asked if he was going to cooperate with the existing opposition forces or form a government of his own supporters, he said “I am working with different opposition forces which exist inside Syria and in exile. We are discussing the formation of a government-in-exile. Its main task will be to fill the power vacuum in the country and be in action after the collapse of the regime in Damascus.”

I am discussing my proposal directly with the leaders of opposition factions or through mediators. We are looking to foster and strengthen cooperation among different opposition factions, including Muslim Brotherhood, which are banned by law in Syria since 1980. We will announce a programme for a democratic change in Syria that will include all the topics and the issues to be handled by the opposition in the next stage.

We are working round-the-clock to set an executable plan to achieve our targets and to benefit from the blunders committed by the regime in recent years. The regime has handcuffed itself through a chain of fatal mistakes which will help the opposition overthrow the totalitarian regime and launch a democratic era.

The Reform Party of Syria (RPS) is a political party committed to democracy and reform in Syria. It is based in the United States because the Ba'athist Syrian regime does not allow opposition political parties to form without permission. The party is made up of Syrians living in America, Western Europe, and elsewhere. The party's leader, Farid Ghadry, was born in Aleppo, Syria and comes from a well-known Syrian family of civil servants and politicians.

It sounds like a family affair when you get to reading about who is married to who....

Investigating the Reform Party of Syria I discover that Farid N. Ghadry (Frank Ghadry in the U.S.) is an Israel loving neocon and Zionist. (And probably even has a Jewish Mother, but this has not been confirmed.)

I should have known that Zionist Israel had to have their fingers in this regime change fiasco! But no, not just their fingers, they are up to their necks in this conflict and push for a regime change.

Why am I not surprised.

(I would have suggested it earlier at the risk of being called an “Israel bashing anti-semitic.” )

But, as it stands, this is where the information leads. Right back to Israel.

Leading this revolution's regime changing team are Zionists US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffery Feltman and US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, former Lebanese Prime Minister Sa’ad Hariri, influential, US-based Zionist Syrian exiles Farid al-Ghadry and Ammar Abdulhamid, the well-connected ex-Syrian VP, Abdel-Halim Khaddam and of course, the powerful Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

Even though Syria is not listed among the three members of the axis of evil named by U.S. President George W. Bush in his January 29, 2002, State of the Union address, ... there is no doubt that the neoconservative faction which currently controls U.S. foreign policy aspires to replace the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad with one more amenable to the U.S. and Israel.

Farid N. Ghadry (also Farid al-Ghadry and "Frank" Ghadry; the latter commonly used in the US) is co-founder and current president of the Reform Party of Syria (RPS), a "'US-based opposition party' of pro-democracy Syrians" and the president of the Syrian Democratic Coalition.

Ghadry is heavily involved with US-based neoconservatives, and is close to Liz Cheney and Wurmser.

Ghadry heads organizations, that despite their lofty sounding names, exist mostly in the United States and were created with an helping hand of several pro-Israeli organizations.

Ghadry is openly “pro-Israel” and positions his organizations with a similar allegiance; Ghadry is even a member of AIPAC.

(And yet he writes articles and opinion pieces as if he is a Syrian citizen and you would think he is living there if you read his words.)

He was born in Syria and, in 1964, at the age of 8, emigrated to Lebanon with his family. Ghadry came to the United States in 1975.

“Frank” Ghadry "graduated from the American University in Washington DC in 1979 with a degree in Finance and Marketing. He worked at EG&G, Intertech, Inc., the subsidiary of a Fortune 500 U.S. defense contractor, for two years before starting his own business in 1983 called International TechGroup, Inc.

Ghadry, because of his father's work, was granted Saudi citizenship. In September 2007 Ghadry's Syrian citizenship was revoked by Syrian president Bashar al-Assad after Ghadry appeared before Israel's Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

In other words, he was recognized as an Israeli plant and he is not a citizen of Syria anymore. They kicked him out and revoked his citizenship.

So now the pieces are really coming together. Zionism is on the move in Syria.