West Asia News and Discussions

[pankajs]

Syrians' resentment at Western delay - Pee Pee See

If America decides to put its plans to attack on hold, which is looking increasingly likely, it will only make that anger worse, highlighting fundamental differences between the view on the ground and that in Western capitals.

[Garooda]

3 Reasons Not to Get Excited About Syria's Agreement on Chemical Weapons

Disagreement between the U.S. and Russia, the difficulty of cleaning up chemical weapons in a war zone, and other reasons Damascus's latest promise might not be fulfilled.

Foreign-policy watchers may have experienced a collective case of whiplash today when, as the threat of punitive U.S. strikes neared, the Syrian government appeared to accept a plan to contain and destroy its chemical weapons and to sign a convention against using them.

This from a government that has blamed a years-long civil war on undefined “terrorists” and repeatedly denied having -- let alone using -- chemical weapons. Here’s the AP:

Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told Lebanon's Al-Mayadeen TV that Syria would place it chemical weapons locations in the hands of representatives of Russia, "other countries" and the United Nations. He promised that his country would also declare the chemical arsenal it long denied having, stop producing such weapons and sign conventions against them.

Though this seems on the surface like good news -- and it might end up being just that -- experts say massive obstacles remain in Western nations’ attempt to curtail Assad’s chemical weapons use.

“Nothing is over, nothing is finished,” said Robin Wright, a Middle East scholar at the United States Institute of Peace and the Wilson Center. “There are still huge questions that could unravel this moment of hope.”

Here are the three biggest issues still in the way:

1) It’s going to be really hard to find and destroy all of the weapons.
In the 1990s, the UN spent eight years attempting to uncover all of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (this is back when Saddam Hussein actually had them, and shortly after he used them to gas Kurds). But as Brookings’ Mike Doran told the Washington Post’s Max Fisher, dictators don’t always fork over their most valued weapons as eagerly as we might hope:

Back in the 1990s, we had an agreement, we had leverage, and we had a U.N. team that went around Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction. But still, Saddam impeded the monitors. He lied and cheated. He played a shell game — moving stuff out the back door of warehouses while the inspectors were pounding on the front door to come in. All the while, in the United Nations, the Russians played lawyer for the defendant.

This time, it might be even harder, since there’s an active civil war going on, Assad hasn’t shown himself to be a willing partner at any other point in the conflict, and he hasn’t even admitted to having chemical weapons.

“How do you go about in a combat zone accounting for the chemical weapons program, conducting on-site destruction, and removing the stuff when combat is swirling around?” Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told me.

2) The international community still disagrees on what to do about Syria.

Earlier today, Russia rejected a French plan for destroying Syrian chemical weapons because it had an enforcement mechanism. Throughout the crisis, Russia and China have obstructed all U.S. efforts to take action against Assad.

Putin also reiterated today that the plan to bring Syria’s chemical weapons under international control will only go forward if the U.S. rules out the use of force, just days after U.S. officials were lobbying Congress for authorization to pursue a strike on Syrian military targets.

Finding and collecting chemical weapons will require a large, cohesive international effort, but the UN Security Council has disagreed sharply on how to handle Syria so far.

In order for the proposal to go through, Russia might demand the U.S. stop arming the Syrian rebels, for example, something the Obama administration is not likely to agree to.

3) Assad will still have conventional weapons at his disposal, and he’s going to continue using them on civilians.

The main reason chemical weapons are banned in almost every country is that they inflict horrific, indiscriminate death, on civilians in particular, to a disproportionate degree. But Assad and his army still have plenty of tanks, missiles, artillery, and regular guns:

In fact, just after the announcement that Syria agreed to the chemical weapons ban, Brookings’ Doran tweeted a story about Putin shipping Assad additional conventional weapons to help him prevail over the rebels.

“99 percent of the people who have died in Syria were the result of conventional weaponry,” Wright said. “This is not going to end the war.”

[Garooda]

Just for the records before he changes his tune as he did in the middle of the speech.

[pankajs]

Chemical weapons deal may end up strengthening Assad

WASHINGTON — A deal allowing President Bashar Assad to surrender Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles runs the risk of extending his stay in power and undercutting support of rebels who have been fighting his regime with U.S. support, some analysts say.

"Assad is going to come out of this stronger," said Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council official who is now a professor at Penn State.

<snip>

Analysts say the risk is that Russia and Syria will be tough negotiators who will use the talks as an attempt to build protection for Assad in return for giving up his regime's chemical weapons, attempting to trade chemical weapons for allowing Assad to stay in power.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has served as Russia's permanent representative to the United Nations and understands the institution well, Leverett said. He has a reputation as a tough negotiator.

The process of removing Assad's chemical weapons could take years, giving Assad and his Russian allies time. The destruction of Libya's main chemical stockpiles were only completed this year, nearly 10 years after Moammar Gadhafi said he would relinquish his nuclear program and chemical weapons stockpiles.

During that time, Assad will likely be able to continue battling rebels while dealing with weapons inspectors and attempting to consolidate his power.

"In a sense it gives the regime permission to fire as much as it wants" if it doesn't use chemical weapons, said Jeffrey White, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Defense Intelligence Agency official

<snip>

Analysts say rebels would be hard pressed to shift the balance of power without outside intervention. "They can't win on the battlefield," Leverett said of the rebels.

The two sides have been fighting more than two years in a bloody stalemate that has led to 100,000 deaths.

The removal of chemical weapons would probably not significantly hurt Assad's ability to take the fight to the opposition, which is considerably fractured and lacks the ability to coordinate attacks, analysts said.

"Assad doesn't need chemical weapons," Leverett said. "In the last few months he's been doing pretty well against the opposition."

<snip>

Jonah Blank, an analyst at Rand Corp., a think tank with long ties to the military, pointed out that the United States negotiated with Moammar Gadhafi in 2003 over the removal of chemical weapons but he was later deposed in 2011 with help from the United States.

"We struck a deal with Moammar Gadhafi (but) that did not prevent us from removing him from power," Blank said.

Perhaps this is a ploy to buy time for Iran .. to ready the umbrella which can then be extended to Syria .. if Assad is able to hold on till then.

[Garooda]

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
OPCW_Facts

Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)
CWC_Wiki

The total world declared stockpile of chemical weapons was about 30,308 tons in early 2010.[11] A total of 71,315 tonnes of agents, 8.67 million munitions and containers, and 70 production facilities were declared to OPCW before destruction activities began. In addition, several countries that are not members are suspected of having chemical weapons, especially Syria and North Korea, while some member states (including Sudan and the People's Republic of China) have been accused by others of failing to disclose their stockpiles.

By May 2012, a total of 50,619 tonnes or 71.10% of declared chemical weapons (of Category 1, which is the main category) had been destroyed as well as all Category 3 declared chemicals. Category 2 remained at 52% complete. More than 45% (3.95 million) of chemical munitions and containers have been destroyed. (Treaty confirmed destruction totals often lag behind state-declared totals.) Only about 50% of countries had passed the required legislation to outlaw participation in chemical weapons production.

Three state parties, Albania (included 16,678 kilograms of mustard agent, lewisite, adamsite, and chloroacetophenone), an unspecified state party (widely believed to be South Korea) and India have completed the destruction of their stockpiles. Russia and the United States, which declared the largest amounts of chemical weapons, are in the process of destruction and have processed 57% and 90% of their respective stockpiles. The deadline set for both countries of April 2012, however, was not met. Libya has started destruction and has destroyed 54.46% of its stockpile (as well as 39.64% of its Category 2 chemical weapons). Iraq has yet to start destruction. Japan and China have started in October 2010 the destruction of chemical weapons abandoned by Japan in China by means of mobile destruction units and reported destruction of 35,203 chemical weapons (75% of the Nanjing stockpile).

Expected complications with the Iraq stockpile[edit source | edit]When Iraq joined the CWC in 2009, it declared "two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities" according to OPCW Director General Rogelio Pfirter.[15] No plans were announced at that time for the destruction of the material, although it was noted that the bunkers were damaged in the 2003 war and even inspection of the site must be carefully planned. Most of Iraq's chemical weapons were previously destroyed under a United Nations reduction program after the 1991 Gulf War. Approximately five hundred degraded chemical munitions have been found in Iraq since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, according to a report of the US National Ground Intelligence Center. These weapons contained sarin and mustard agents but were so badly corroded that they could not have been used as originally intended.

Financial support for destruction[edit source | edit]Financial support for the Albanian and Libyan stockpile destruction programmes was provided by the United States. Russia received support from a number of nations, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Canada; some $2 billion given by 2004. Costs for Albania's program were approximately 48 million U.S. dollars. The U.S. had spent $20 billion and expected to spend a further $40 billion.

Known production facilities (of chemical weapons). Thirteen States Parties have declared chemical weapons production facilities.

Bosnia and Herzegovina
China
France
India
Iran
Iraq
Japan
Libya
Russia
Serbia
United Kingdom
United States

1 non-disclosed state party (referred to as "A State Party" in OPCW-communications; said to be South Korea)

As of the end of March 2012, all 70 declared facilities had been deactivated and 92% (64) have been certified
as destroyed or converted to civilian use. In 2009, Iraq declared five production sites which were put out of commission by damage in the 1991 and 2003 wars; OPCW inspections were still required.

CWC_Member_Countries_Wiki

[habal]

Finally US has found something resembling a normal human to question Kerry.

But transforming himself into a simian, Kerry jumps from tree to tree to avoid getting caught.

Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) grilled Secretary of State John Kerry on Syria during his appearance before the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday. The exchange quickly got testy as the two men argued over the administration’s pending military strike against the war-torn nation accused of using chemical weapons.

After being asked if any potential military strikes should be put on hold, Kerry pointed out that the Senate already delayed the vote on its Syria resolution on Monday night. Miller argued the Senate only delayed the resolution because there weren’t enough votes to pass it. “You know that,” the lawmaker said.

“Actually, no I don’t,” Kerry replied.

“Well, I do,” Miller shot back.

“Well, I’m glad you know something. I think, this should not be a political discussion,” Kerry responded.

Miller said he was not talking politics, but telling the “truth” about why the Senate hit the brakes on the use-of-force resolution. However, his comments only further riled up the secretary of state.

“Do you want to play politics here or do you want to get a policy in place? The policy that can be put in place is to try to get this particular option of getting control of chemical weapons in place,” Kerry lectured. “If you want to undermine that, then play the politics.”


Miller then had to ask the chairman of the committee to limit the witness’ answers to the questions asked as Kerry talked over him.

When asked what he meant when he said the strike on Syria would be “incredibly small,” Kerry explained it would be small in comparison to military action in places like Iraq. “It’s not a years war,” he said.

Kerry also argued that the existence of chemical weapons in an unstable Syria threatens the security of the United States. But Rep. Miller quickly noted that North Korea has an even larger stockpile of chemical weapons and asked if the U.S. planned to strike that country as well.

“But you really don’t want answers, do you?” Kerry said after explaining that the administration is currently engaged in serious efforts to limit chemical weapons in North Korea.

“This is not the Senate. We do not filibuster here,” Miller shot back after a tense back-and-forth.

“I’m trying to give you an answer,” Kerry said.

& look at those eyes ..

dead

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... -exchange/

[Shanmukh]

A far right Israeli perspective on the proposed attack on Syria.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfiel ... elp-israel

[Garooda]

Finally US has found something resembling a normal human to question Kerry.
But transforming himself into a simian, Kerry jumps from tree to tree to avoid getting caught.

Nothings beats the below two when it comes to 'heated' political moments

[pankajs]

Francois Hollande: David Cameron committed 'schoolboy error' on Syria

[svinayak]

David Cameron: Syria UN Resolution To Test Russian Chemical Weapons 'Ruse'

Did Kerry Just Ad-Lib His Way Out of a War?

Obama conditionally backs offer on Syria

Mark Mardell: Obama's Syria speech almost irrelevant

Syria strikes on hold, world waits on Assad

There's Almost No Chance Russia's Plan for Syria's Chemical Weapons Will Work

Obama conditionally backs offer on Syria

McCain: Putin is 'feeling pretty good today'

[Theo_Fidel]

The Southern Baptists of Lemuria have spoken. ^

Al Qaeda is infiltrating Syria BECAUSE Bashar refuses to go. Just like the LeT infiltrating into Kashmir "because India refuses to go."

That is just stupid. A failure to read simple english.

I said democratize. If India resorted to one man rule the country would spin out off control as well.
The key way India de-fanged kashmir was by democratizing it over the objections of idea free, comprehension lacking right wing crowd that floats through here.

[Theo_Fidel]

Austinji, mind boggling display of double standards by some people in US, no? People who demonized Bush for Iraq war now want Obama to start a war in Syria because Assad allegedly gassed his people to death. It looks like they don't remember that Saddam too gassed his people to death.

Saddam gassed the Kurds IIRC. Technically he did not consider them 'his' people.

[Aditya_V]

Theo- When Saddam Gassed the Kurds, the US SD said Iran did it. It was only after the invasion Kuwait was the blame put on Saddam.

[Philip]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 08432.html

Syria civil war: Russia tables plan for chemical weapons handover to rival French proposals, as Obama tells American public he will give diplomacy a chance

France’s scheme gives Assad a 15-day time limit before risking the use of force, while Russia says it will discuss its proposals with the US on Thursday

[Shanmukh]

Francois Hollande: David Cameron committed 'schoolboy error' on Syria

Hollande's approval ratings are in the 20%s. I wonder if Assad has better ratings in Syria, than Hollande has in France ......

[harbans]

Obama is playing Putin here..

[Garooda]

Obama is playing Putin here..

How so? By using Putin to convince syria to surrender the CWs and that POTUS along with France can derive a resolution which cannot be met by Syria (ontime or complete handover of CWs) and thus justify the use of force after a while (few weeks) after which nobody will look bad except Assad? Just curious.

[Rudradev]

The Southern Baptists of Lemuria have spoken. ^

Al Qaeda is infiltrating Syria BECAUSE Bashar refuses to go. Just like the LeT infiltrating into Kashmir "because India refuses to go."

That is just stupid. A failure to read simple english.

I said democratize. If India resorted to one man rule the country would spin out off control as well.
The key way India de-fanged kashmir was by democratizing it over the objections of idea free, comprehension lacking right wing crowd that floats through here.

Didn't I tell you all to "wait for it"?

Really interesting view of Kashmir history here by the way. The assertion being made is that India "de-fanged" Kashmir BY "democratizing" it. The underlying assumption is that Kashmir, at some point after independence, (a) was not democratized (b) had "fangs" (I presume this means "was in rebellion") (c) these "fangs" needed to be "de-fanged" BY "democratizing" it.

On the contrary, Kashmir was democratized the second Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession. At that stage there were no "fangs". The populace was quite uniformly pro-India, and even remained pro-India despite the Pakis' best efforts to foment revolt in 1965. Incidents like Hazratbal agitation, Maqbool Butt etc. were flashes in the pan. It was only in 1989, i.e. after 42 years of being "democratized", that separatist terrorism began to dominate the Kashmiri political landscape in a sustained way. What was there to "de-fang" before this?

Lemurian history, surely. Also, by the way, exactly matching the view of one Robin Raphel of the US State Dept. In 1993, an MEA babu tried to explain to her that J&K militancy problem was because of the influx of jihadis from Pakistan. Raphel responded by saying: why don't you (Indians) realize the people of Cash-mere don't want you there?

Very Lemurian response. It's a pure strawman: automatically absolves Pakis of any role in sending terrorists to Kashmir, by putting the blame on India for not paying attention to the will of the people (who had enjoyed democratic governance for nearly five decades by then.)

So again, I point out the coincidence. The very same argument is being made today against Assad. It's a pure strawman: automatically absolves GCC, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc. of any role in sending terrorists to Syria, by putting the blame on Assad for not "democratizing."

[Agnimitra]

That is just stupid. A failure to read simple english.

I said democratize. If India resorted to one man rule the country would spin out off control as well.
The key way India de-fanged kashmir was by democratizing it over the objections of idea free, comprehension lacking right wing crowd that floats through here.

Didn't I tell you all to "wait for it"?

Really interesting view of Kashmir history here by the way. The assertion being made is that India "de-fanged" Kashmir BY "democratizing" it. The underlying assumption is that Kashmir, at some point after independence, (a) was not democratized (b) had "fangs" (I presume this means "was in rebellion") (c) these "fangs" needed to be "de-fanged" BY "democratizing" it.

On the contrary, Kashmir was democratized the second Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession. At that stage there were no "fangs". The populace was quite uniformly pro-India, and even remained pro-India despite the Pakis' best efforts to foment revolt in 1965. Incidents like Hazratbal agitation, Maqbool Butt etc. were flashes in the pan. It was only in 1989, i.e. after 42 years of being "democratized", that separatist terrorism began to dominate the Kashmiri political landscape in a sustained way. What was there to "de-fang" before this?

Lemurian history, surely. Also, by the way, exactly matching the view of one Robin Raphel of the US State Dept. In 1993, an MEA babu tried to explain to her that J&K militancy problem was because of the influx of jihadis from Pakistan. Raphel responded by saying: why don't you (Indians) realize the people of Cash-mere don't want you there?

Very Lemurian response. It's a pure strawman: automatically absolves Pakis of any role in sending terrorists to Kashmir, by putting the blame on India for not paying attention to the will of the people (who had enjoyed democratic governance for nearly five decades by then.)

+1

Theo_Fidel ji, you talk like a running dog of the Anglo-Saxon world. To you, the winds of history are rightly determined by Might. Technological Might is right, according to your "comprehension". It is "idea free" and "comprehension lacking" of us to dream of strategizing against Might, even though it goes against India's civilizational core.

But it is you who are "idea free" about the very notion of civilizational, or about evaluating history by any other criteria than Technological Sophistication. I saw this very argument put forward recently by a zealous Arab convert to Christianity - he was arguing that Christianity is right because history has proved that Christiandom has evolved and trumped the rest of the world (technologically of course). It appears that the colored converts cling to this shock and awe for the West (and self-loathing for their own civilization's problems) to justify or reconcile themselves to the deracination caused by the conversion of their ancestors. Completely unnecessary if you ask me.

[Vikas]

What is France's dog in this fight I wonder.
Neither they have the power nor the stomach nor the bravery required for taming Syria and Assad. They don't even have any strategic interests in the region (I mean any more than say India or Japan or China). Is it an attempt to show that they have balls by inflating their gall bladder ?
France is trying to punch way above their weight. Maybe they too want to prove their loyalty to Massa.

[eklavya]

The Southern Baptists of Lemuria have spoken. ^

Al Qaeda is infiltrating Syria BECAUSE Bashar refuses to go. Just like the LeT infiltrating into Kashmir "because India refuses to go."

That is just stupid. A failure to read simple english.

I said democratize. If India resorted to one man rule the country would spin out off control as well.
The key way India de-fanged kashmir was by democratizing it over the objections of idea free, comprehension lacking right wing crowd that floats through here.

T_F, lets just get a few simple things straight:

1) Al Qaeda are not democracy activists

2) The Arab sunni states backing the sunni terrorists in Syria are not democratic and they all have awful human rights records of their own

3) Democracy in J&K or the rest of India does not discourage Pakistan sponsored terrorism

[Rudradev]

Syria was a French colonial possession, so they want their influence to persist rather than be replaced by US/Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Saxon proxies. After the intervention in Mali (another former French colony) went well, they feel encouraged to throw their weight around.

[Surya]

France was the colonial power that effed up the land where the bloodbath is going on

Syria was arbitrarily divided by the French and like all colonial powers they pretend they are over it but still think its their backyard to play

[ramana]

Syria was a French colonial possession, so they want their influence to persist rather than be replaced by US/Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Saxon proxies. After the intervention in Mali (another former French colony) went well, they feel encouraged to throw their weight around.

Not really. Syria was a League of Nations mandate territory to France after WWI.
The minortiy Alawites were cultivated/groomed by the France to take power after they got independence.

France wants to assert its rights of "droit signeur" in Syria and not let it fall into US hands.

[Rudradev]

Syria was a French colonial possession, so they want their influence to persist rather than be replaced by US/Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Saxon proxies. After the intervention in Mali (another former French colony) went well, they feel encouraged to throw their weight around.

Not really. Syria was a League of Nations mandate territory to France after WWI.
The minortiy Alawites were cultivated/groomed by the France to take power after they got independence.

France wants to assert its rights of "droit signeur" in Syria and not let it fall into US hands.

French colonial claims on Syria are based on the Sykes Picot agreement (1915) predating the League of Nations. Carving out Lebanon from Syria was a French stratagem. The French further attempted to subdivide the Syria of their mandate into independent Alawite, Druze, Aleppo and Damascus states, but these eventually acceded to modern Syrian Republic when it became sovereign in 1946.

Almost 100 years later, France wants to continue having a say in the brokerage of territorial redistribution in the area, post Assad. Per the Pepe Escobar article quoted by Carl Ji, there are very specific zones of Syrian territory (especially Homs, Al-Qusayr) that Qatar would like to control for the transit of its pipeline. Quite likely Qatar/GCC have roped in France with a promised share of the returns.

[Karan M]

The Syria war has brought out the hypocrisy of the US when it comes to the ME in stark detail. They want Assad out as KSA and Israel, the two Amrikkan allies want him out. All the rest is a charade. As if the US cares about chem weapons after having supported Saddam, firebombed Tokyo and Dresden, plus nuked other countries.

Karan-ji,
I am not sure what the government of Israel thinks - they have maintained an ambivalent stance. I suspect it is the feeling that they are going to have a problem in the north no matter the outcome that keeps them ambivalent. But the Hebrew press has been divided, on the lines of the leftists (Haaretz) wanting to bomb Syria and the right (Jerusalem Post) wanting to keep their hands off the mess.

Nagesh sir, the Syrian Govt is the primary supporter of Hezbollah. Getting Assad off, means one H of the two H (Hez, Hamas) which torment Israel are gone, reduced. IMHO thats the main motive they'd be happy with having Assad gone, after a fratricidal war in which Syria becomes a weak shadow of itself or a quasi US protectorate which will keep a peace with Israel, however tendentious. Having said that, I dont decry Israels strategic needs, but just pointing out how selective the US is when it comes to deciding who is good or who is bad.
PS:If you can read Hebrew, would appreciate you posting in the mil forum about any news, that you may come across, on Indo-Israel mil deals and cooperation.

[Karan M]

Putin's gambit has saved Syria for now. But need to see how long Assad is able to stay in power and consolidate the state. This will turn the jihadis on their sponsors.

Is this the continuation of the Shia-Sunni fight all over again?

AlQ+ FSA/ Sunnis+ Chechens + Iraqis/assorted Islamists on one side versus the Syrian Army, Iranian Army and Hezbollah on the other.

I wonder what the Russians are doing in terms of weapons, training and techniques.

[Karan M]

As was expecting from this crises , Putin has allowed the sale of more advanced S-300VM to Iran

Russia called the terms of delivery of S-300 to Iran
http://lenta.ru/news/2013/09/11/s300/

Russian President Vladimir Putin has taken a policy decision, which will have to resolve the conflict between Moscow and Tehran regarding the delivery of anti-aircraft missile systems S-300. According to the newspaper "Kommersant" quoted a source close to the Kremlin, according to the decision, Russia will supply Iran with five battalions of S-300VM "Antey-2500", but on the condition that Tehran will withdraw a lawsuit against the "Rosoboronexport" for the failure of the previous contract.

According to the newspaper, Tehran is likely to agree to supply a set of "Antey-2500". Earlier, Iranian Ambassador to Russia Seyed Mahmoud Reza Sajjadi said that Moscow could offer Tehran anti-aircraft missile systems, "which are able to cover our territory in the framework of the plan" and that will suit the Iranian side on the cost and time of delivery, "we could be flexible." It should be noted that the S-300VM prohibitions under the UN and Russia to supply not covered.

Very interesting. The Russians under US pressure, previously backed off for support for IRIAF MiGs. If Putin reverses that, the Iranians may actually get some deterrence. In the merry go round world we live in, if Israel picks up techniques against S-3XX class missiles, perhaps the IAF can benefit as well.. we face a similar (though different class PMU1/2) threat with PRC.

The new S-300VM as was sold to Venezuela has a range of 350 km
http://samoletchik.livejournal.com/63876.html

[Shanmukh]

Nagesh sir, the Syrian Govt is the primary supporter of Hezbollah. Getting Assad off, means one H of the two H (Hez, Hamas) which torment Israel are gone, reduced. IMHO thats the main motive they'd be happy with having Assad gone, after a fratricidal war in which Syria becomes a weak shadow of itself or a quasi US protectorate which will keep a peace with Israel, however tendentious. Having said that, I dont decry Israels strategic needs, but just pointing out how selective the US is when it comes to deciding who is good or who is bad.
PS:If you can read Hebrew, would appreciate you posting in the mil forum about any news, that you may come across, on Indo-Israel mil deals and cooperation.

I posted a far right Israeli viewpoint about the war http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfiel ... elp-israel, in which they prefer Assad. There are three reasons - they fear a Muslim refugee exodus into their northern borders. They cannot really stop it, and are worried about what it will do to their country. The second reason why they are afraid is that Assad has a base and wishes to live. The Syrian border has been stable for a long time, and even the Hezbollah have not used the Syrian border directly (they operate from their Lebanese bases). It is possible to have a deterrent of sorts vis-a-vis Assad. However, if Syria turns into a quagmire a-la Afghanistan, their deterrence will be gone. For one, Assad, pushed into a corner, may hand over his chemical weapons to the Hezbollah, or attack Israel himself. For another thing, bombing amorphous terrorists in the anarchy that will be Syria is all but impossible, and they are afraid it will turn into another Gaza type situation (where you can bomb the terrorists to bits, but it is useless, since the terrorists will run away when you bomb them and return after the bombing stops, and continue exactly the same thing as before). The third reason is that there is fairly limited cooperation between the Hamas and the Hezbollah. With Sunni terrorists on three sides of their borders, they are afraid that Jordan will be toppled as well, removing their last stable border.

The only bonus is removing Hezbollah. But Hezbollah is the symptom, not the disease. If Hezbollah is removed, another will take its place (probably a Sunni terrorist force). Israel hatred is the life blood of the Islamic middle east.

I can read Hebrew and would be glad to post about any Indo-Israeli deals that appear in the Hebrew press. But my military knowledge, particularly in comparison to the experts we have on BRF, is extremely limited. So - you may find my posts a bit lacking .....

[chetak]

What is France's dog in this fight I wonder.
Neither they have the power nor the stomach nor the bravery required for taming Syria and Assad. They don't even have any strategic interests in the region (I mean any more than say India or Japan or China). Is it an attempt to show that they have balls by inflating their gall bladder ?
France is trying to punch way above their weight. Maybe they too want to prove their loyalty to Massa.

When a country historically known for its national impotence has to prove that it does not suffer from erectile dysfunction it tries to come across as a jeehard mard.

The frogs took a beating for the fiasco in the gulf war non participation, so now, with itty bitty syria there want to be seen in the fore front.

Right behind the amerikhans, of course, as befits the "cultured" little darlings.

[Shanmukh]

Nagesh sir, the Syrian Govt is the primary supporter of Hezbollah. Getting Assad off, means one H of the two H (Hez, Hamas) which torment Israel are gone, reduced. IMHO thats the main motive they'd be happy with having Assad gone, after a fratricidal war in which Syria becomes a weak shadow of itself or a quasi US protectorate which will keep a peace with Israel, however tendentious. Having said that, I dont decry Israels strategic needs, but just pointing out how selective the US is when it comes to deciding who is good or who is bad.
PS:If you can read Hebrew, would appreciate you posting in the mil forum about any news, that you may come across, on Indo-Israel mil deals and cooperation.

Another view from the Israeli far right, Karan-ji.

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2013/08/ ... rcuses.php

The author is deeply connected with the Israeli far right. From what she writes, you will know what the Israeli right is thinking.

[devesh]

once again, Theo_fidel, you are repeating your broken record of "kashmir problem solved". when we look at Kashmir today, none of the problems that have lead to the sorry state of that region have been solved. the Hindus who were persecuted and run out of that area have not returned. the govt takes no action to return them. essentially, the demographic genocide of the Muslims has worked wonders. and the Govt of India refuses to recognize such a brazen attitude of the Muslims of Kashmir, by not responding by actively helping the Hindus to relocate back to JK.

as long as Hindus don't return to JK, the Kashmir problem has not been solved. whatever EJ's of his ilk or anyone else says, that is the bottomline. until then, Kashmir is still a problem.

[svinayak]

This has become a media PR war world over

How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Side With the Russians (and Assad, Sort Of)

Senate shelves resolution on military strike against Syria, deferring to diplomacy

Diplomats push ahead on plan for Syria's chemical weapons

Putin Seizes on Syria to Cement Russia Middle East Sway


How the Syria plan broke through, just in time

America exhales in relief over Syria airstrikes it didn't want

[Rudradev]

Putin's gambit has saved Syria for now. But need to see how long Assad is able to stay in power and consolidate the state. This will turn the jihadis on their sponsors.

Is this the continuation of the Shia-Sunni fight all over again?

AlQ+ FSA/ Sunnis+ Chechens + Iraqis/assorted Islamists on one side versus the Syrian Army, Iranian Army and Hezbollah on the other.

I wonder what the Russians are doing in terms of weapons, training and techniques.

Karan ji, indeed. In fact, the alignment of forces is in some ways reminiscent of the situation in Europe exactly 100 years ago.

On one side, a Shia "Triple Entente" of Iran, Iraq and Syria with Russia and maybe China (more on this later) backing it. Unconventional assets include Kurdish militias, Hezbollah and other Qods Force-trained militias in Syria and the Peninsular Arab states.

On the other side, a Sunni "Double Alliance" of GCC (KSA, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Oman) and Turkey with the US, France, and Israel backing it. Unconventional assets include Hamas, FSA, and various Muslim Brotherhood/Al-Qaeda affiliated groups.

It is the unconventionals, of course, who will make this a little bit different from WWI. They have a presence in almost every country and they will be the leading edge of the fight, rather than a mere trigger as with Gaviel Princip.

Now from an Indocentric perspective, a primary matter of concern is how AfPak squares into the situation.

It could be said that the US has an additional reason (apart from downhill skiing) to see Afghanistan in Talib hands when the shooting starts. Taliban-controlled Afghanistan will side with the Sunni Double Alliance against Iran, rather than remain neutral as Karzai would. As for Pakistan itself, as Carl ji observed previously, there's no doubt that it will end up on the GCC/Turkey side of the war. In fact, it will likely become a primary front in a Shia-Sunni war against Iran, because of many factors. Firstly, the Saudis hate to fight any of their wars themselves, and because they are one of the Pakis' four-fathers, there is little question that they would demand (and get) full Paki cooperation in such a conflict. Secondly, it is quite possible that Saudi Arabia paid for Nawaz Sharif's election; certainly they paid for the Tanzeems who selectively failed to target Sharif's candidates during the election campaign. Thirdly, even if Pakistan is officially reluctant to go to war against Iran, the Tanzeems of Pakistan know on which side their naan is buttered; their money comes from Saudi Arabia and GCC, not the bhikari Pakistani state.

If Pakistan does get involved in a shooting war with Iran, this is of course a good thing for India. Firstly, the Taliban and Paki Tanzeems will be too preoccupied fighting the Iranians to pay much attention to J&K (in fact, such a war might provide the perfect opportunity for India to reclaim POK, and especially Gilgit-Baltistan, where the tribes are predominantly Shia.)

Secondly, the idea of cooperating with India in an anti-Taliban axis becomes more attractive from an Iranian-Russian point of view, since the open alignment of Taliban with GCC will obviate any possibility of a Teheran-Islamabad-Kabul-Beijing-Moscow "understanding" regarding the post-US dispensation in Afghanistan.

Thirdly, the atmosphere of a long and protracted shooting war in the region will queer the pitch for China in many ways. China wants to establish connectivity to the Arabian Sea via the Karakoram-Gwadar corridor... but this region, of course, will be on the frontlines of a Pak-Iran conflict. China wants to position itself for the economic exploitation of Afghanistan after US withdrawal... but this prospect will be equally skewered if the Taliban is fighting Iran and Iranian/Russian proxies in the area. The ideal situation for China is one in which it could take advantage of Paki connectivity and the post-US Afghan dispensation to build an overland pipeline from Iran to China, or facilitate easy access to Iranian oil via Gwadar, or both. Such a situation would make China safer from Indian (or other) interdiction of the Malacca Strait chokepoint upon its energy lifeline. If the Great Shia Sunni War begins, all of these Chinese pipedreams go for a toss.

Another thing to recognize is that moves are *already* being made to determine, through different kinds of international pressure, what role (if any) India would play in the coming Great Shia Sunni War. I am sure you will all laugh when you first read this... because we all know MMS is incapable of doing anything in India's long-term interest. The US has bought and paid for him with the Nuclear Deal... so much so that Putin gave a hint of his barely concealed contempt for MMS at the G20 summit, when he remarked how the Indian PM "unexpectedly" opposed the US proposal to strike Assad!

However, in the realm of international relations, other countries do not regard India from the prism of assuming MMS will be there forever. The measures other countries take vis a vis India are determined by New Delhi's perceived capabilities, not its perceived intentions. And that's why we're already seeing such measures being taken:

1) From Saudi/UAE/GCC, we've seen the unexpected gift of three most wanted terrorists: Tunda, Bhatkal, and Abu Jundal. The message being sent to Delhi is: we would-be Sunni Caliphs respect your concerns on terrorism, so don't join any axis against us even if we have the Pakis and the Taliban on our side of a future war. The GCC is genuinely concerned that we will to some or other extent take the Shia side in such a war. We have many reasons: shared concerns with Iran and Russia about the Taliban returning to Kabul, and also traditional ties to Russia which many of our veteran babus in the MEA still hold dear.

2) From Iran, we have not seen anything in the open, but there is no doubt they are angling heavily for India to take their side. As bargaining chips they offer continued access to Afghanistan via Chahbahar-Zaranj-Delaram, and renewed cooperation against the Taliban (should it come to power in Kabul and begin uprooting the infrastructure and Indian presence we've cultivated there over the last decade.) From our side, we could potentially offer the Iranians many things short of actually joining the war against the Sunni Double Alliance. We could at the very least keep Pakistan off balance and make it difficult for them to maneuver against Iran. As a step up from that, we could offer port facilities, landing and overflight rights etc. to Iranian ships and aircraft. As a step even further up, we could facilitate Shia militancy in Pakistan and POK; and still further, we could actually attack Pakistan and attempt to reclaim POK. Once again, don't think of MMS doing these things and laugh... for all the world knows, it may be Modi running the show in India when the Great Shia Sunni War begins in earnest.

3) From the Pakistani side, we're seeing something interesting. Pakistan's own Caliphate dreams are not quite in sync with either the GCC's or the Shia Triple Alliance's. They favour a Greater Khorasan model including AfPak, Iran, and many countries of Central Asia as the seed-land of the 21st Century Caliphate. War with Iran doesn't at all suit a powerful section of Paki Islamists in the TSPA and ISI, who have advocated developing closer relations with Iran and China in opposition to the traditional alliances of Pakistan with US and GCC.

However, the Pakis are realizing that they may not have a choice, because as I mentioned previously, GCC has bought and paid for many of their Tanzeems, their nuclear programme, and very likely for Nawaz Sharif's election as well. GCC is also their primary source of charitable energy, and a major contributor to keeping their excuse for an economy afloat. And GCC doesn't care a fig for their Khorasan pipedreams.

The Pakistanis see what is coming and want to take desperate measures to avoid it. Their worst nightmare is a situation where the Paki govt watches helplessly while Saudi-sponsored Tanzeems and Taliban militias rush westward to join the war against kufr Shias. This is not something they will be able to solve by GUBOing and double-timing, which has been their preferred tactic with Unkil for 12 years.

Therefore, the Paki Islamists (specifically, the Hamid Gul/Mirza Aslam Beg inspired faction of the TSPA/ISI, who are very anti-US and pro-Khorasan) have taken matters into their own hands and tried to change the course of events by heating up the border with India. This, I think, is a big reason why we have seen incidents like the Jalalabad attack, and the beheading and repeated incursions along the LOC. If Pakistan gets into an ongoing situation of border tension with India, it can beg the Saudis to let them keep out of the Great Shia Sunni War against Iran, using the "Islam Khatre Mein Hai" excuse. Such a situation will also help them to rein in the Tanzeems and bring about some semblance of unity, helping to avoid a situation where the Tanzeems race off westwards to fight their own jihad against Teheran.

Thus, I believe recent Paki policy towards India has been guided, at least in part, by the need to pre-empt involvement on the GCC side of a Great Shia Sunni War against Iran. Conversely, US and GCC pressure on India to "keep talking to Pakistan" may be interpreted in this light as well... they do not want India giving Pakistan an excuse to stay out of a war against Iran.

4) Finally, China. We've all been wondering, what exactly is behind the recent hostility exhibited by PLA on our borders? The prospect of a Great Shia Sunni War offers a few potential answers. First, they want to keep India off balance militarily, and discourage India from intervening to its advantage (e.g. trying to reclaim POK/NA) if Pakistan gets involved in a war against Iran.

Secondly, they sense that the outcome of the Great Shia Sunni War will be an unprecedented deficit of energy security for China; of course, India will suffer an energy shortage as well, but China in particular will become especially vulnerable to future Indian retaliations at the Malacca chokepoint. If China wants to prosecute a war against India and change the borders in its favour, they have a limited window before the shooting begins in West Asia.


So really, there are three, not two different factions of interests in the ongoing situation.

A) Those who want the war to happen: GCC, Turkey, Israel, the US and some of its Western Allies including France. They would like to see Iran subdued and a stable GCC-led Sunni Caliphate formed that is inextricably linked to the West by bonds of economic and security interest.

B ) Those who do not want the war to happen right now (since they are at a relative disadvantage), but will fight willingly to prevent West Asia becoming dominated by a GCC-led Sunni Caliphate: Iran, Iraq, Syria and Russia.

C) Those who really, really do not want the war to happen, and will do anything they can to prevent or delay its occurrence, because they stand to lose the most as a consequence of Great Shia Sunni Conflict: Pakistan and China

[Theo_Fidel]

So again, I point out the coincidence. The very same argument is being made today against Assad. It's a pure strawman: automatically absolves GCC, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc. of any role in sending terrorists to Syria, by putting the blame on Assad for not "democratizing."

Not really. Despite your spinning like a top to avoid the issue with empty headed ignorant allegations and big big words.

This entire thing was started by the secular folks remember. Some of us were here at the time. They wanted a bit more freedom and some say in what was going to happen to them. It all started in Daara and most of the country did not fully join even the daraa folks. Who themselves were asking for release of political prisoner and the end of the 50 year emergency IIRC. They wanted the democratic process, completely dominated by Bashar mind you, to restart and give them a bit of breathing room. Compared to Egypt and Libya it was a minor situation. Well fool bashar responded by hacking down the secular folk and shooting random kids on the street with the result that a large portion of the country abandoned him. Over time his every outrageous action has meant large chunks of the country have no governance and now we have the Allah the great types marching down the streets. Whether it is funded by KSA or USA it is Bashar who put the country in this position. It was catastrophic misreading of the ground situation and his own instability. The ‘Rose in the Desert’ editorial is perfect example of how clueless the Assad family was at that moment. I recommend you read it, esp. now.

Comparing Syria to Kashmir is classic. ‘I don’t know what to say so I’m going to shoot myself in the foot’. At then pretend no one noticed. I called you on it, that Kashmir is democratic and so is a stable situation. There is no comparison between Kashmir and Syria. No amount of big word spewing is going to change this. How hard is this to understand. My opinion is stop making ridiculous comparisons and scoring own goals in the process.

[Agnimitra]

I called you on it, that Kashmir is democratic and so is a stable situation.

Kashmir is stable?? Is it because the Kashmiri Pundits are stably staying out of the valley? Is it because no Indian can buy land or choose to settle in Kashmir??

Is this the kind of democratic "progress" and stability you "progressive" people call a punctuated equilibrium?

[devesh]

^^^
not to worry at all. it is also the future model of South TN that he fondly hopes will become reality. that would be OT here, but when one gets away with calling Kashmir "stable", one must wonder where their interests really lie. what if we have 29 states all like Kashmir. you know, each with its own Article 370?

so, we should not be surprised at what his ideal India looks like. I mean, Article 370 is in the Constitution, after-all, and we're all constitution-abiding to the last line, word, and letter, aren't we? onlee.

[Singha]

Cheen is a few years into a $75b oil import deal with Iran btw. not sure what % of their imported oil comes from iran.

[Philip]

Finally a bit of sanity.If the US and Russia cooperate ,the global temp. of world hotspots will cool down significantly.In Syria,Assad can leverage his handing over of chem weapons,by insisting on no regime change and large-scale supplies of weaponry from Russia.In fact,Syria will become Russia's "Israel" in the region.That will give Russia too a permanent foothold in the ME,warm water Meditt. ports of Syria,plus the ability to strengthen its Iranian ties.For the war-weary US,unable to get boots on the ground after two painful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,it can hold up the de-fanging of Syrian chem-weapons as lessening the WMD threat to Israel,which would as a post above has said,would be swamped with the likes of Al-Q jihadis hell-bent upon the destruction of Israel squatting in the ruins of Syria .O'Bomber can also declare the removal of Syrian chem weapons as a diplomatic coup achieved without firing a shot and endangering US lives. He can polish and wear his Nobel medal now which sat rather incongruously on his lapel!

Devesh is absolutely right.The return of the Kashimiri Pandits is non-negotiable,the ethnic cleansing by the pro-Paki jihadis and their camp followers of the Hurriyat,etc., has to be overturned.It is a truly sad commentary that our current dispensation has behaved in such a treasonable manner,"supping with the devil"...as it is now going to do,while forgetting about the driven out Kashmiri Indians ,who should protest while this despicable meeting between Sharif and Singh takes place.MMS would do well to dwell on that old saying,that if "you sup with the devil,be sure to use a long spoon".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/s ... s-handover

US welcomes 'significant' Russian proposal on Syrian weapons handover
White House praises Russian co-operation over Syrian weapons crisis before key talks get under way in Geneva on Thursday

Dan Roberts in Washington and Julian Borger in London
theguardian.com, Wednesday 11 September 2013 20.20 BST

Jay Carney said: 'The proposal they have put forward is very specific and the Syrian reaction is a total about-face. This is significant.' Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

The US has welcomed what it called "very specific" Russian proposals to secure the handover of Syria's chemical weapons before key talks in Geneva on Thursday.

Placing its faith in Moscow's leverage over its Syrian ally, the White House urged patience and said it was increasingly confident that its Kremlin partners were acting in good faith by "putting their prestige on the line".

"We have seen more co-operation from Russia in the last two days than we have heard in the last two years," said White House spokesman Jay Carney.

"The proposal they have put forward is very specific and the Syrian reaction is a total about-face. This is significant."

The sudden thaw in White House attitudes toward Russia has met with scepticism in Washington, where many see it as an excuse for Barack Obama to avoid defeat in Congress over military action against Syria. A speech by Obama to the American people on Wednesday night was criticised by hawkish Republicans after it called for a suspension of Senate attempts to pass a resolution authorising US strikes.

But the White House insisted the Russian offer was genuine, and a direct result of the pressure it had put on Syria. "There is no question that the credible threat of US force helped bring us to this point," Carney said. "By making this proposal Russia has, to its credit, put its prestige on the line when it comes to a close ally".

Separate discussions over a UN security council resolution were taking place in New York. The talks in Geneva between John Kerry and Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov will not cover the wording of any resolution. But the US tried to play down a potential rift over whether it should contain the threat of military action if Syria fails to comply.

The White House hinted the Geneva talks would go on for at least two days, and refused to discuss the Russian proposal which it received on Wednesday.

"Each side will bring technical experts so I will expect this will take some time," Carney said. "There are communications ongoing and papers exchanged but we are not at the stage of putting out a public piece of paper."

The talks will need to resolve differences between western powers and Russia over whether the disarmament process should be backed by a threat of force if the Syrian government reneges on the timetable.

Diplomats also said that it was unikely that a UN security council vote would take place before the publication of a report by UN weapons inspectors on the suspected chemical weapons attack in rebel-held eastern Damascus on 21 August. That report is expected some time next week.

Meanwhile, US, British and French diplomats continued to meet at the UN headquarters on Wednesday to discuss a French draft resolution that would give Bashar al-Assad's regime 15 days to produce an "exhaustive, complete and definitive declaration of the locations, amount and types of all items related to its chemical warfare programme".

The draft, according to a copy obtained by Reuters, would then order "immediate on-site inspections of Syria's chemical, biological and related vehicles". The full security council was due to meet later on Wednesday.

The Syrian government has acknowledged it agreed with Russia that it would sign the 1993 chemical weapons convention, deliver a full declaration of its arsenal and its locations, and provide access to UN, Russian and other inspectors.

Kerry said that the US was still pushing for a UN resolution to bolster the plan and which would punish Syria if it delayed or broke off the disarmament process. But he indicated he was prepared to listen to the Russian point of view.

"We need a full resolution from the security council in order to have confidence that this has the force that it ought to have. That's our belief, and obviously the Russians are at a slightly different place. We'll have to see where we get to. I'm not going to negotiate this out in public," the secretary of state said in answer to questions on an online chat forum.

The president of France, François Hollande, also signalled flexibility on the wording of a resolution. A statement from the presidency, released after a meeting of Hollande's defence council, said: "The president emphasised France's determination to explore all avenues at the United Nations security council, in order to enable actual and verifiable control of the chemical weapons present in Syria as soon as possible."

France's foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, is due in Moscow next Tuesday to discuss the issue with Lavrov and may visit Beijing on Monday for talks with the Chinese government, which has been non-committal on France's draft resolution.

In a televised address to the American people on Tuesday night, Obama laid a path towards a possible diplomatic resolution to the impasse, He pledged to work directly but insisted military strikes remained a possibility.

However, in what were his most doveish remarks since his administration began briefing two weeks ago that a strike was imminent, Obama said he would wait for the United Nations inspectors to complete their report on the 21 August chemical attacks outside Damascus before taking further action. He said there were "encouraging signs" of a political resolution.

In London, officials revealed that Britain approved the export to Syria of more chemicals that could be used to make sarin, a powerful nerve agent, than had previously been acknowledged.

Five export licences were approved for the sale of more than 4,000kg of sodium fluoride between 2004 and 2010. They were on top of exports approved last year of sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride under licences but subsequently revoked on the grounds they could be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of weapons.

The five licences were revealed by Vince Cable, the business secretary, in a letter to Sir Robert Stanley, chairman of the Commons committee on export controls.

Additional reporting by Paul Lewis in Washington

[Rudradev]

Dear Lemurian,

Nearly 24 hours ago I painted a huge target on your foot.

Added later: now wait for the standard Lemurian strawman "how can you compare India to a genocidal tyrant like Assad" etc. Note that my argument doesn't compare India and Assad- it merely points out that the same rhetorical justifications have been, and will be used against both India and Assad by the same people- regardless of the truth.

You have since then obliged me by shooting yourself directly in that target, not just once:

I said democratize. If India resorted to one man rule the country would spin out off control as well.
The key way India de-fanged kashmir was by democratizing it over the objections of idea free, comprehension lacking right wing crowd that floats through here.

But twice:

Comparing Syria to Kashmir is classic. ‘I don’t know what to say so I’m going to shoot myself in the foot’. At then pretend no one noticed. I called you on it, that Kashmir is democratic and so is a stable situation. There is no comparison between Kashmir and Syria. No amount of big word spewing is going to change this. How hard is this to understand. My opinion is stop making ridiculous comparisons and scoring own goals in the process.

Who is comparing Syria to Kashmir? You are. No one else is. You are the one drawing up "democratization" parallels between the two situations, when no parallels exist.

As I said, and will say once more: the sole common factor between these two situations is the rhetoric of your paymasters towards them. Nothing more, nothing less. In both cases, your paymasters allege that terrorism is not the fault of the nations exporting it, but the fault of the country affected by it, for not being "democratic enough."

And that is exactly the line you are repeating here when you say:

Al Qaeda is infiltrating Syria because Bashar refuses to go.

The soul-harvesters should really be looking to employ a slightly less predictable spokesperson, no? Lemurian, Australo-dravidian or otherwise, this is just taking equal opportunity too far.

Despite your spinning like a top to avoid the issue with empty headed ignorant allegations and big big words.

Sorry about the big big words. Actually, you had accused me of having inferior comprehension before...

That is just stupid. A failure to read simple english.
.

And naturally I took that criticism to heart, because as a simple yindoo I didn't have access to the superior Yinglish training of an Evanjihadi education. I was also too busy spinning like a top to point out the flagrantly obvious contradiction in your positions, what to do.

I'll stop here, because I realize you took quite a pay cut after the epic failure at Koodankulam scaremongering, and I don't want to embarrass you further in front of your soul-harvesting employers (who are surely reading this).

Just one thing though: I think since you brought up the Deraa incident, it's important that people read what Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were saying about Assad after (yes, after) the Deraa incident.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/syr ... inton-says

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday drew a contrast between Syrian President Bashir Assad and his late father and predecessor, and said U.S. lawmakers who recently have visited Damascus regarded him as a “reformer.”

She made the startling comment while explaining why the United States will not intervene on behalf of Syrian civilians revolting against the regime as it has done in the case of Libya.

CBS newsman Bob Schieffer, the interviewer, noted that the president’s father, Hafez Assad, had “killed 25,000 people at a lick” – a reference to the crushing of an Islamist revolt in the town of Hama in 1982 – and said the regime now was firing at civilians with live ammunition.

“Why is that different from Libya?” he asked.

“There’s a different leader in Syria now,” Clinton said. “Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”

A regular visitor to Damascus is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who has met with Assad at least six times, most recently last November.

Kerry was a strong supporter of the Obama administration’s decision to re-engage the Assad regime and to send an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in five years. He has also taken an interest in prodding Syria and Israel towards peace talks.

In a March 16 speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on U.S. policy in the light of what he called “the new Arab awakening,” Kerry referred to the situation in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Morocco, Oman and Lebanon.

There was not a single reference in the speech to Syria, however.

When Kerry was asked about Syria during a question-and-answer session afterwards, he voiced optimism about the direction relations were taking.

“I have been a believer for some period of time that we could make progress in that relationship,” he said. “And I’m going to continue to work for it and push it.”

“President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had,” Kerry continued. “And when I last went to – the last several trips to Syria – I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward.”

He mentioned some of the requests, including the purchase of land for the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, the opening of an American cultural center, non-interference in Lebanon’s election and the improvement of ties with Iraq and Bahrain, and said Assad had met each one.

“So my judgment is that Syria will move; Syria will change, as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States and the West and economic opportunity that comes with it and the participation that comes with it.”


Kerry said nothing about the need for internal reform in Syria.

In contrast, Kerry early this month was an outspoken advocate for the administration to act in Libya, describing Gaddafi as “a mad man bent on maintaining power” and saying the U.S. should lead the world in preventing the slaughter of more Libyan civilians.

Again. All this is AFTER the sekulaar Deraa incident in which Assad's police had killed 60 protestors. Dateline on this report is March 28, 2011. Assad had been in power for nearly TEN YEARS, and Those Who Pay Lemurian Spokespersons were still going on and on about what a "reformer" he was, despite the Deraa incident which our resident Lemurian Spokesperson points to as an example of Assad's tyranny today.

But then, on June 25, 2011: Iran, Iraq and Syria signed the Islamic pipeline deal. Terrorists from the GCC states entered Syria in force, and the narrative changed virtually overnight. All of a sudden, it was his own fault! He deserved it! Hit him hard! etc etc etc.