Bharat Rakshak

It is important to remember that the label “Arab Spring” given by the West is a deception to make people believe that the Tunisian and Egyptian governments were overthrown by a mass movement. While there was a popular revolution in Tunisia, its goal was not to change the regime, but to achieve economic and social changes. It was the United States, not the street, that ordered Zinedine el Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak to step down. Then it was NATO that toppled and lynched Muammar al-Gaddafi. And it is again NATO and the GCC that have fueled the attack against Syria.
Across North Africa—with the exception of Algeria—the Muslim Brotherhood have been placed in power by Hillary Clinton. Everywhere, Turkish communications advisors are on board, courtesy of the Erdogan government. Everywhere, “democracy” was a facade which allowed the Brothers to Islamize firms in exchange for embracing the pseudo-liberal capitalism of the United States.
The term “Islamize” reflects the rhetoric employed by the Brothers, not reality. The Brotherhood intends to control the privacy of individuals based on principles which are outside the scope of the Quran. It calls into question the role of women in society and imposes an austere lifestyle without alcohol or cigarettes, and without sex…at least for others.
Over the past ten years, the Brotherhood has stayed under the radar, leaving the transformation of public education in the hands of the sect run by Fethullah Gülen, of which President Abdullah Gül is a member.

Saleha Mahmood Abedin, the mother of Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, reportedly served in the women’s division of the Muslim Brotherhood alongside the wife of Egypt’s new president, the Brotherhood’s Mohammed Mursi.
Although the Brotherhood flaunts its hatred for the American way of life, it thrives under the protective wing of the Anglo-Americans (UK, USA, Israel) who have always been able to use its violence against those who resisted them. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had appointed to her cabinet her former “body woman,” Huma Abedin (wife of former Zionist Congressman Anthony Weiner), whose mother Saleha Abedin presides the women’s division of the Brotherhood. It was through this channel that Clinton stirred up the Brotherhood.
The Brothers purveyed the ideology of Al-Qaeda, through one of their members: Ayman al-Zawahiri, the organizer of President Sadat’s assassination and currently the leader of the terrorist organization. Al-Zawahiri, like Bin Laden, has always been an agent of U.S. services. Although officially listed as a public enemy, from 1997 to 2001 he met regularly with the CIA at the U.S. Embassy in Baku in the context “Operation Gladio B,” as testified by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds [1].

shyamd wrote:Sunni's have started mobilizing the average abdul. Its very very serious now. A MB leader just announced he and his volunteers are heading for Syria.

Even in Europe some will answer the call - whether financial or other.

Samudragupta wrote:Egyptian MB??....sunnis were mobilized long time back...i wonder when are going to see SES ans LEJ/Let in Syria....

habal wrote: When those with weapons have little clue of guerrila warfare and waste bullets to act macho. These are the numbers you were talking about. These guys have no military brains. More of such guys on the ground can only waste more bullets.

brihaspati wrote:It is important to follow the Sunni mobilization arguments and the methods employed. This is a training ground for greater expansion to the west and east. Since Europe is needed on side, this "west" does not mean "west into Europe" but for the moment a consolidation in North Africa. In the East - both Russia and China needed on side for now - so expansion will be towards India.

The "investments" from Gulf should therefore be seen as "lulling to sleep" and strengthen the hands of those Indian voices which try to portray the Sunni agenda as completely innocent - until the ME has been reordered to Saudi designs. For the moment even Israel will be preserved - because it helps to keep lines open to US, preserves a devil to unify disparate Sunni groups, but no such protection is needed for India - which can absorb the surplus jihadi zeal spilling over from Saudi-Sunni mobilization.

The methods employed against Syria will be the ones employed against India too - at some future stage.

brihaspati wrote:They want to do this now under air-cover. They would go for Assad's air dominance. Meanwhile, can people see here how much Saudi money and oil can influence foreign policy of other nations - even as "big" ones like the USA?

RoyG wrote: I've been saying this as well. This conflict has to continue to simmer otherwise the Sunnis will shift their focus to India. Myanmar is already being proactive about diluting the influence of Islam in certain regions of the county. IMO, the NE is where it will all start.

shyamd wrote:Tested in India already. See early 90s and Kargil - they were hoping for Kashmiri's to rise... They've been trying for a while. They'll probably try again around 2015 or after they consolidate afghanistan.

Kargil is a good example where they thought IAF planes couldn't fly such altitude.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Friday it would be dramatically more difficult and costly to set up a no-fly zone over Syria than it was in Libya, stressing that the United States does not have a national interest in pursuing that option.

"We feel like the best course of action is to try to strengthen a moderate opposition," Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told a news briefing.

He said the United States did not want to send U.S. troops - or "boots on the ground" - to Syria and said enforcing a no-fly zone over the country could require intense, open-ended U.S. military engagement.

Britain, the United States and France are holding emergency talks to discuss how and when to arm the Syrian rebels and to weigh up the risks of imposing a no-fly zone.
The White House gave the go-ahead for some form of military assistance to Syrian rebels after announcing that there was clear evidence of chemical weapons having been used by the forces of President Bashar-al Assad.
Both Britain and France have welcomed the announcement.
United States military planners are now gearing up for what looks set to be the most high-risk overseas operation since the beginning of the Arab Spring. So far it is being packaged as a limited mission, to reassure the domestic audiences and avoid a clash in the United Nations with Russia and China.
David Cameron is due to talk to President Obama this evening. A Downing Street spokesman said: “No decision has been taken [to arm the rebels] but we are continuing to discuss this with our international partners.”
On the no-fly zone, the spokesman said: “We have always been clear that nothing is off the table.”
Since Mr Cameron is committed to a House of Commons debate before pressing ahead with arms deliveries, British officials are very cautious about making public statements. Contingency plans have however been drawn up. US and British personnel are already on the ground in Jordan training members of the Free Syrian Army.
Senior French and British officials were in contact yesterday. But the main political decisions are likely to be taken on the fringes of the G8 summit in Northern Ireland early next week.
President Obama and President Putin are to use the summit to discuss Syria and the implications of arming the rebels on any future peace talks.
The Pentagon has started to draw up a list of weapons that could make a difference to the rebels’ cause. The focus is expected to be on shoulder-launched anti-tank guns, ammunition and command-and-control systems. Reaction in London was welcoming but cautious.
“This could preclude us having to arm the rebels [David Cameron had already announced the UK military was looking into the mechanism of arming the rebels],” a senior British defence source said.
“However, it could become a joint enterprise. But there’s no definite decision yet either by the British Government or the Obama administration,” the source said.
UK defence officials pointed out that the Saudis and Qataris had been arming the rebels for months. “So I don’t think American arms will be a massive game-changer. The rebels can’t be given high-tech weaponry because they won’t have the training or capability to utilise them,” one official said.
The no-fly zone, as presently envisaged, would probably establish a 40km buffer area stretching into Syrian air space, and the aim would be to protect Jordan from artillery assault from troops of the Assad regime.
As long as the US did not seek total command over the Syrian skies, and as long as it projected its role there as essentially defensive of Jordan’s borders and its large population of refugees, then a limited no-fly zone could be put in place without a UN Security Council Resolution. The US has already moved Patriot air defence batteries and F16 fighter planes to Jordan.
The military purpose, though, would be to assure a safe flow of weapons to the rebels in Syria. And it could even, within a self-limiting brief, be able to bring a sense of threat to the Assad regime.
The US could justify the elimination of artillery or the destruction of runways in this stretch of Syria. The ultimate effect would be to create a safe haven for those fleeing the conflict — and destabilise the Assad Government, rather than Jordan.
But critics say that the decision to arm — which has still not been spelled out — has come too late to head off a devastating battle for Aleppo in the north. Government troops have been massing outside the ancient city with the aim of smashing the last big rebel-held stronghold.
The commander of the Free Syrian Army, General Salim Idriss, was due to meet British and French officials today to discuss arms supplies across the Turkish-Syrian border, the only practical way of girding the Aleppo rebels for the fighting ahead. He has presented a shopping list that includes hundreds of anti-tank weapons, shoulder-held anti-aircraft weapons and small-arms ammunition.
Both Britain and France persuaded the EU to lift its arms embargo against Syria but have said that they will hold off with deliveries until August.
The diplomatic goal would be to put pressure on Mr Assad to come to the negotiating table in Geneva. But his troops, backed by the Lebanon-based Hezbollah militias and Iranian advisers, have taken this as a spur to capture as much rebel terrain as possible before the conference.
British officials thus argue that deliveries should start earlier — if only to help to preserve the rebel stronghold of Aleppo.
The main US fear, and the reason for its long hesitation, has been that its involvement could lead to a political and diplomatic debacle experienced — in the view of many Republicans — in the Libyan intervention.
US officials have argued until now that Syria is even riskier than Libya. It has a very sophisticated air defence system and the clear support of Russia and Iran.
America has taken more than two months to arrive at its judgment that the Syrian leader has crossed Mr Obama’s “red line”.
The decision follows robust recommendations from some of his second-term team of advisers, especially Susan Rice, his new National Security Adviser.
The first time Mr Obama considered the option, his first-term team, including Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, Leon Panetta, the Defence Secretary, and David Petraeus, the former CIA director, all supported the idea.
But Mr Obama overruled them and chose to stick to diplomatic pressure and humanitarian aid.
“There’s been a sinking sense since then that something more must be done, but action now is not going to save the cities of Homs and Aleppo from falling back under Damascus control. It will come too late,” one Western diplomatic official said.
Mr Obama’s declaration put Nato on the spot and looked set to cause divisions within the alliance. “There’s absolutely no enthusiasm in Nato to intervene in Syria on behalf of the rebels,” a senior alliance diplomatic source said.
“The idea that the whole of Nato will back action in Syria is fanciful. The only time when the alliance will start seriously to consider taking action is if there’s a dramatic spillover of violence into the neighbouring region or if there’s a direct attack on Turkey,” the source said.
“An attack on Turkey [a member of Nato] would be a straightforward decision for the alliance, a slam-dunk as the Americans would say. The alliance also has a commitment to regional stability, so a spillover could lead to action, but military intervention to support the rebels? That’s not on the cards,” the alliance source said.
Nato military chiefs, with the US in the lead, have drawn up a number of contingency plans for Syria, including a no-fly zone. But officials say there is no political consensus for intervening either by arming the rebels or enforcing a no-fly zone.
“It was hard enough to get Nato to back a no-fly zone in Libya and that was a much easier operation. Syria is a different prospect altogether. Is the US or Nato going to order Syria to stop using air power? They can’t do that without enforcing a countrywide no-fly zone and no one is going to attempt to do that,” the Nato source said.
Alliance officials also cast doubt on the purpose of a proposed limited no-fly zone on the Jordanian border which could cost an estimated $50 million a day, according to Washington estimates.
“The refugees are not being attacked by the Syrian forces, so there’s no justification for implementing a no-fly zone on the border, and having one there won’t help the rebels unless the protected area can be used for military training. It will also be very difficult to enforce,” the diplomatic source said.
Last week, General Philip Breedlove, the new Nato supreme allied commander, warned that any enforcement of a no-fly zone would be “an act of war” against Syria.

Saudi Prince Talal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, half-brother of King Abdullah and the father of a businessman Prince Alwaleed, the Arab states to withdraw their ambassadors from Russia, in response to the Moscow Declaration intention to provide the regime of President Bashar al-Assad with a sophisticated missile systems.

Prince Talal, in Tweet him via his official site "Twitter," he said, "bothered me what appeared in the media about arming Russia to Syria's Assad missiles S300 I would have liked if taken the Arab League and all the countries decided to withdraw their ambassadors (for consultation) in response to that."

Prince, who had to resign from "Allegiance Council" Saudi Arabia, it was considered that this act in itself "will stir the stagnant water in the Arab-Russian relations" against the backdrop of the variance in viewpoints between the side toward the Syrian file.