SYRIAN ESCALATION: CAMERON SPEAKS OUT

Things are bad in Syria and can get worse.

I was pleasantly surprised by Cameron when he showed a hint of backbone and said he did not think Assad could be part of the bigger picture.

If it wasnt for the Syrian regime (or meddling by CIA and MI6), there would be no ISIS, and even then Assad still kills way more people than the rest combined.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

If it wasnt for the Syrian regime (or meddling by CIA and MI6), there would be no ISIS, and even then Assad still kills way more people than the rest combined.

It is the civil war that is killing and displacing people, the same applied to Libya. Agreed Assad is not squeaky clean but then opposition are not saints.

As for the west  etc meddling, all non Syrians should have kept well of the conflict. ditto Libya and Iraq, or indeed Yemen. Civil Wars tend too be extremely vicious and cause friction that lasts for decades, or even centuries. That is the reason it should be left to the Syrians themselves to sort it out.

As for without the Syrian Regime there would be no ISIS. You could reverse it and say without ISIS and others aiding ISIS there would be no civil war. Or should a legitimate government [bad or not] just roll over and surrender to the first attack on it government by armed militants? Then the armed militants become the legitimate government, till displaced by another set of armed militants. Where do you think it would end?

The public are only told what the PTB want us to know. Ukraine is one example, a legitimately elected government was forced out of office by force, yet it only had 12 months or so to go before elections. I have not even mentioned who brought the Malaysian plane down over the Ukraine, or the fact that there as been a complete lack of information from the findings of the black-box 

 

As i see it wrote:

As for without the Syrian Regime there would be no ISIS. You could reverse it and say without ISIS and others aiding ISIS there would be no civil war. Or should a legitimate government [bad or not] just roll over and surrender to the first attack on it government by armed militants? Then the armed militants become the legitimate government, till displaced by another set of armed militants. Where do you think it would end?

I agree with most of what you said, but in this bit I disagree.

ISIS was late to the party. The initial escalations were due to the regime losing its cool over some graffiti by children and then losing its cool over the families publicly mourning for thise killed resulting in attacks on the funeral processions.

Armed response to the regime only started about 6 months later - and even then it was Assad soldiers being ordered to go attack civilians and instead defecting.

Assad was peddling the was peddling the "war against extremists" even before there was any response to the attrocities by his regime.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

ISIS was late to the party. The initial escalations were due to the regime losing its cool over some graffiti by children and then losing its cool over the families publicly mourning for thise killed resulting in attacks on the funeral processions.

I can acept that ISIS was late to the party, but they appear to be the main player now. Whether they would be in a position to be a credible legitimate opposition, never mind a government. I would say their actions have condemmed them in the eyes of most people, be they Muslim or not. 

The moderate opposition, appears to have been brushed aside by the two main opponents to Assad. Whether you, I or indeed the US. Assad heads the legitimate government in Syria. [the only government recognised  by the UN] Also he, or his government are the only ones who can be held legally accountable for war crimes. ISIL and Co are not recognised as either the official opposition, or Government in waiting.

This is the argument that the Russians are using in assisting the Assad government. NATO in its bombing within Syria, legaly is on very thin ice. Bombing within Iraq, they are using the fact that they are assisting the Iraqi Government. As for Libya, NATO/US had IMHO no clear mandate in interfering in what was a civil war.

The Turkish airforce appears to have now stopped its anti-ISIL ?? operation in Syria, when in fact most of its bombs fell on the Kurds. Then again there is no love lost bettwen the Kurds and Turkey. In the eyes of the west the Kurds are seen as a terrorist organisation. But over the years they have been well and truly stuffed by all sides. I have put a link below to a potted history of the Kurds, which makes interesting reading. It maybe all truth, or all lies, or both.

http://www.tangledwilderness.org/a-mountain-river-has-many-bends/

But back to Assad, legitimate or not. tyrannical dictator or not. It all depends on a Syrian point of view. Certainly not mine, but i did notice that around the time the decision to have a regime change in Libya, the MSM started a campaign against Assad. The only people IMHO who should decide on a regime change is the people directly involved.

I can speak with personel knowledge that in Libya, most people had access to decent housing, health care, education and enjoyed one of the best standard of living in Africa. As for the Syrians, i can only speak with second-hand knowledge. but i know people who live in Cyprus and had no qualms about going to Syria for medical treatment [at half the price of the EU] and had no complaints. The Syrian people had access to decent, health care and until the civil war decent housing and living standards.

How long it will take the Syrians/Libyans to get back to were they were pre-civil war no one knows. But at least if the Russians, with the aid of the Syrians themselves things may get back to some sort of normality. Bearing in mind even if ISIL and/or the opposition is defeated there will still be factions that are unhappy. At least with stability the majority of Syrians might be able to make a fresh start and start to rebuild their country.

My only other fear is what will happen in Europe when all the people who have arrived realise that Europe is not the land of milk and honey they thought it was. Plus as countries start to take measures to balance their countries budgets. The new arrivals, not to mention the poor in these countries will be the first to feel these measures.

 

The Western Alliance Is Crumbling: EU Is Abandoning U.S. on Overthrowing Assad
Obama Cannot Defeat Assad without EU’s Help. EU Also Rejects Obama’s TTIP & TISA Demands. Obama’s Presidential ‘Legacy’ Heads to Failure

Could be the destabilising of the Mid-east could be about to destabilise the EU/Usa relationship? Then again it could be misinformation.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-western-alliance-is-crumbling-eu-is-aba...

 

Another take on the Syrian/Middle East problem.

Its either the US being very silly, or setting up a situation were its weapons manufacturers [who are not silly] make a lot of money. After all its nothing personal just business.

Remember the three P's Power, Politics and Profits.

Tuesday, October 06, 2015. The World's Silliest Empire

Interesting article, link below

http://cluborlov.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-worlds-silliest-empire.html#...