Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned last month after the downing of a military jet initially blamed on Damascus that it now regarded Syria as a “clear and imminent threat”.
The use of the word ****initially**** is very interesting. I guess it's safe to say that the Turkish plane was indeed inside Syrian airspace when shot down. We haven't really heard much about that from NATO recently have we. I wonder why.
where refugees at a camp there clashed with Turkish police after demonstrating over their living conditions.
It's noteworthy that the Syrians aren't protesting against the Syrian government, they're protesting against the Turkish government.
Some fighters said they belonged to al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), while others claimed allegiance to a group called Shura Taliban.
From the horse's mouth. NATO is supporting and supplying Al-Qaida and a Taliban like group. These guys are not civilian freedom fighters. They're ruthless thugs and the 2 million Christians and minority Jewish populations in Syria, who had lived in peace under the current administration, are now scared to death of these Jihadist Al-Qaida rebels.
If NATO had any sense whatsoever they'd cut off the flow of weapons and ammo immediately, let the Syrian authorities arrest these roaming jihadist gangs and then deal with Syria diplomatically.
Tamarama at Jul. 23, 2012 - 09:51AM JST
From the horse's mouth. NATO is supporting and supplying Al-Qaida and a Taliban like group. These guys are not civilian freedom fighters
Sources, references please.
nandakandamanda at Jul. 23, 2012 - 11:35AM JST
Sometimes the word rubbish comes to mind. If the fighters were armed with Kalashnikovs as it says in the article, does NATO now supply Russian weapons?
The end of the aritlce says the most. Just as in Mali where the Tauregs took over some towns from the government, al Qaida moved in afterwards and took them away. What we can see is local probably Sunni rebels doing the heavy fighting with al Qaida riding in from behind.
Either way, this is a fight based on religion and discrimination and the two sides are largely the two sects of Islam, the Sunnis and the Shiites, the Shiites supported by Iran and the Sunnis by S Arabia and Qatar. (Assad's Alawites are a kind of Shiite.)
Anything the West says or does is largely peripheral posturing.
Jonah Falcon at Jul. 23, 2012 - 12:00PM JST
If NATO had any sense whatsoever they'd cut off the flow of weapons and ammo immediately, let the Syrian authorities arrest these roaming jihadist gangs and then deal with Syria diplomatically.
Oh I think they have lots of sense, they know what they are doing. I guess what you meant was "If NATO had any decency ..."
By coincidence, on this very page I now see an advert showing Hillary smiling and waving, with the UN logo in the background, with the heading Hillary Welcomes Global Gun Ban. Considering she is behind the arming of these murderous thugs (albeit probably indirectly)...
nandakandamanda at Jul. 23, 2012 - 12:54PM JST
US-supported and armed Saudi Arabia has probably been trying to use all its influence to get the West and NATO involved.
I think NATO has done a superb job of staying out of it.
For many people it is politically easier to deflect attention away from the real situation and make NATO the bad boys, when in fact they probably have relatively little influence on what is happening there right now.
NeverSubmit at Jul. 23, 2012 - 01:18PM JST
Sources, references please. (from Tamarama)
Ya ... umm.... did you read the article that these comments are in reference to? Check the second to last paragraph.
does NATO now supply Russian weapons?
Yes, why not? AK47s are the cheapest weapons out there and most of the mercenaries are already trained and comfortable with AKs. If you can't conceive the possibility of NATO being able to source AK47s you're in a Disneyland reality.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey have openly admitted to aiding the rebels. They couldn't have done so without the tacit approval of Hillary et al.
NATO doesn't have the political authority for a full fledged assault, although that's what they'd like to do. There strategy is to arm and send in a plethora of armed gangs and hope that they successfully destabilize the regime. Just this week has seen reports of gregarious looting and the point blank assassination of Christian families in Syria, all courtesy of your friendly neighborhood Jihadist rebel.
nandakandamanda at Jul. 23, 2012 - 02:37PM JST
No, I don't think they have sent in a plethora of armed gangs. I can imagine that they have made contact, or attempted to make contact, to find if there is one group that might be worth supporting. I can imagine that they might have sent in special forces teams for this purpose. I can imagine that they have had a hard time finding anyone credible. I can imagine that they prefer a stable Syria to an unstable Syria.
NATO would not need to supply al Qaida with Kalashnikovs when those fighters have already got plenty from Libya. I can imagine that the Syrian army itself probably uses Kalashnikovs. I can imagine a lot of things in my "Disneyland reality", as you put it, but most of it is closer to the truth than your one-sided portrayal.
Unlike you, and I am one of millions in the world who feel the pain of the average citizen of Syria and just wish that the killings would stop. This is unrealistic dreaming, I know.
I do not believe that Sunnis are superior to Shiites, or Shiites are superior to Sunnis. I pray that Syria will once again become a peaceful and prosperous place, standing on its own two feet, with a mature and beneficial presence in the region, whoever is in charge.
Tamarama at Jul. 23, 2012 - 04:09PM JST
NeverSubmit
Ya ... umm.... did you read the article that these comments are in reference to? Check the second to last paragraph
Well, yeah, that's why I asked. See, AQIM, amongst other things has declared one of it's primary objectives is to attack Spanish, French and American targets - all NATO states and is considered a terrorist organization by both the US and EU. But you claim NATO are looking past this and funding them in Syria. The US has been fighting the Taliban for 10 years in Afghanistan, with Quetta Shura Taliban being currently responsible for partly aiding and directing the insurgency in Afghanistan. Can you honestly and reasonably think it likely that NATO would fund either of these groups? Especially any Al Qaeda affiliated group? Think about what you are suggesting.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey have openly admitted to aiding the rebels. They couldn't have done so without the tacit approval of Hillary et al.
So you take the Secretary of State's awareness of what certain states may be doing as irrefutable proof of NATO funding and support? Wow. Whilst they are more than likely perfectly aware of what is happening in Syria on a moment by moment basis, your stretch of logic in trying to connect the dots simply does not make sense.
There is no doubt that Syria is surrounded by people who are keen and willing to roll their sleeves up and get into the fray in Syria, and once the civil war really kicked it has been incresingly possible for them to do exactly that. In fact, it's hardly surprising at all that they have done so. But to attribute their presense in Syria to NATO shows a tenuous understanding of the geopolitical reality of the region.
nandakandamanda at Jul. 23, 2012 - 05:39PM JST
NeverSubmit, please watch this objective and neutral Al Jazeera video debate on Syria and then tell us what you think. Yes, the presenter is a little annoying! :8)
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidesyria/2012/07/20127229263475515.html
Elbuda Mexicano at Jul. 23, 2012 - 06:05PM JST
What a mess! I do hope peace and tranquility can one day smile upon Syria too!
Tamarama at Jul. 23, 2012 - 07:14PM JST
nanda
That's an outstanding link - thanks for posting it.
11 Comments
Login to comment
NeverSubmit at Jul. 23, 2012 - 08:47AM JST
Let's analyze;
The use of the word ****initially**** is very interesting. I guess it's safe to say that the Turkish plane was indeed inside Syrian airspace when shot down. We haven't really heard much about that from NATO recently have we. I wonder why.
It's noteworthy that the Syrians aren't protesting against the Syrian government, they're protesting against the Turkish government.
From the horse's mouth. NATO is supporting and supplying Al-Qaida and a Taliban like group. These guys are not civilian freedom fighters. They're ruthless thugs and the 2 million Christians and minority Jewish populations in Syria, who had lived in peace under the current administration, are now scared to death of these Jihadist Al-Qaida rebels.
If NATO had any sense whatsoever they'd cut off the flow of weapons and ammo immediately, let the Syrian authorities arrest these roaming jihadist gangs and then deal with Syria diplomatically.
Tamarama at Jul. 23, 2012 - 09:51AM JST
Sources, references please.
nandakandamanda at Jul. 23, 2012 - 11:35AM JST
Sometimes the word rubbish comes to mind. If the fighters were armed with Kalashnikovs as it says in the article, does NATO now supply Russian weapons?
The end of the aritlce says the most. Just as in Mali where the Tauregs took over some towns from the government, al Qaida moved in afterwards and took them away. What we can see is local probably Sunni rebels doing the heavy fighting with al Qaida riding in from behind.
Either way, this is a fight based on religion and discrimination and the two sides are largely the two sects of Islam, the Sunnis and the Shiites, the Shiites supported by Iran and the Sunnis by S Arabia and Qatar. (Assad's Alawites are a kind of Shiite.)
Anything the West says or does is largely peripheral posturing.
Jonah Falcon at Jul. 23, 2012 - 12:00PM JST
Oh I think they have lots of sense, they know what they are doing. I guess what you meant was "If NATO had any decency ..."
By coincidence, on this very page I now see an advert showing Hillary smiling and waving, with the UN logo in the background, with the heading Hillary Welcomes Global Gun Ban. Considering she is behind the arming of these murderous thugs (albeit probably indirectly)...
nandakandamanda at Jul. 23, 2012 - 12:54PM JST
US-supported and armed Saudi Arabia has probably been trying to use all its influence to get the West and NATO involved.
I think NATO has done a superb job of staying out of it.
For many people it is politically easier to deflect attention away from the real situation and make NATO the bad boys, when in fact they probably have relatively little influence on what is happening there right now.
NeverSubmit at Jul. 23, 2012 - 01:18PM JST
Ya ... umm.... did you read the article that these comments are in reference to? Check the second to last paragraph.
Yes, why not? AK47s are the cheapest weapons out there and most of the mercenaries are already trained and comfortable with AKs. If you can't conceive the possibility of NATO being able to source AK47s you're in a Disneyland reality.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey have openly admitted to aiding the rebels. They couldn't have done so without the tacit approval of Hillary et al.
NATO doesn't have the political authority for a full fledged assault, although that's what they'd like to do. There strategy is to arm and send in a plethora of armed gangs and hope that they successfully destabilize the regime. Just this week has seen reports of gregarious looting and the point blank assassination of Christian families in Syria, all courtesy of your friendly neighborhood Jihadist rebel.
nandakandamanda at Jul. 23, 2012 - 02:37PM JST
No, I don't think they have sent in a plethora of armed gangs. I can imagine that they have made contact, or attempted to make contact, to find if there is one group that might be worth supporting. I can imagine that they might have sent in special forces teams for this purpose. I can imagine that they have had a hard time finding anyone credible. I can imagine that they prefer a stable Syria to an unstable Syria.
NATO would not need to supply al Qaida with Kalashnikovs when those fighters have already got plenty from Libya. I can imagine that the Syrian army itself probably uses Kalashnikovs. I can imagine a lot of things in my "Disneyland reality", as you put it, but most of it is closer to the truth than your one-sided portrayal.
Unlike you, and I am one of millions in the world who feel the pain of the average citizen of Syria and just wish that the killings would stop. This is unrealistic dreaming, I know.
I do not believe that Sunnis are superior to Shiites, or Shiites are superior to Sunnis. I pray that Syria will once again become a peaceful and prosperous place, standing on its own two feet, with a mature and beneficial presence in the region, whoever is in charge.
Tamarama at Jul. 23, 2012 - 04:09PM JST
NeverSubmit
Well, yeah, that's why I asked. See, AQIM, amongst other things has declared one of it's primary objectives is to attack Spanish, French and American targets - all NATO states and is considered a terrorist organization by both the US and EU. But you claim NATO are looking past this and funding them in Syria. The US has been fighting the Taliban for 10 years in Afghanistan, with Quetta Shura Taliban being currently responsible for partly aiding and directing the insurgency in Afghanistan. Can you honestly and reasonably think it likely that NATO would fund either of these groups? Especially any Al Qaeda affiliated group? Think about what you are suggesting.
So you take the Secretary of State's awareness of what certain states may be doing as irrefutable proof of NATO funding and support? Wow. Whilst they are more than likely perfectly aware of what is happening in Syria on a moment by moment basis, your stretch of logic in trying to connect the dots simply does not make sense.
There is no doubt that Syria is surrounded by people who are keen and willing to roll their sleeves up and get into the fray in Syria, and once the civil war really kicked it has been incresingly possible for them to do exactly that. In fact, it's hardly surprising at all that they have done so. But to attribute their presense in Syria to NATO shows a tenuous understanding of the geopolitical reality of the region.
nandakandamanda at Jul. 23, 2012 - 05:39PM JST
NeverSubmit, please watch this objective and neutral Al Jazeera video debate on Syria and then tell us what you think. Yes, the presenter is a little annoying! :8) http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidesyria/2012/07/20127229263475515.html
Elbuda Mexicano at Jul. 23, 2012 - 06:05PM JST
What a mess! I do hope peace and tranquility can one day smile upon Syria too!
Tamarama at Jul. 23, 2012 - 07:14PM JST
nanda That's an outstanding link - thanks for posting it.