Vinnaren i pepparkakshustävlingen!
2018-05-28, 06:08
  #49873
Medlem
arbetets avatar
Mycket intressant och lång artikel av en f.d. US-,marinsoldat om Syrien innan katastrofen. Väl värd att läsa i sin helhet men jag klipper in en lång bit från slutet:

A Marine in Syria

Silhouettes of Beauty and Coexistence before the Devastation

Brad Hoff
Freelance writer: Middle East, Syria, Syrian Christians, U.S. Policy. Marine veteran, 5 years travel & study in Syria, Egypt
Apr 28, 2015

/…/When Assad unexpectedly came to power in 2000 after the deaths of his father and brother, he promised to take Syria into a new, modern age of reform. These were the days of “early Assad,” when many in Washington declared “Assad is a reformer” (Hilary Clinton was declaring this even as late as early 2011). But the Syrian government has always been much more than a dictator, or even a ruling family. Even should President Assad desire reform, the old elites which form the outer circles of Ba’ath influence provide a strong “check” on what even he might hope to enact. The economic fortunes of these institutional elites were dependent on the Assad status quo, and this made the type of drastic change that leaders in Western capitals suddenly demanded practically impossible. In addition, the middle class families of the most populace cities, especially Damascus and Aleppo, were not discontent enough to go to the streets. This, not too much unlike middle-class Americans who merely shrugged when mass government abuses like domestic spying and pervasive government breaking of Constitutional rights were definitively revealed in 2013.

Most Syrians I knew were deeply fearful of a sudden cataclysm that might send Syria the way of sectarian Iraq, especially a program that took decision making away from actual Syrians. News savvy Syrians even had Western sponsored “democracy experiments” more recent in time than Iraq to consider: Post Gaddafi Libya began to unravel from the moment of its “liberation” by NATO. As international press generally fell silent on new Libya’s slow descent into chaos at the hands of accountable-to-no-one armed militias, it focused its eye on unreformed Syria. A few attempts at Facebook sponsored “days of rage” protests failed to gain any traction inside Syria, to the great disappointment of self anointed “democracy promoters” in the West. I was personally relieved during this brief period of Arab Spring “inactivity” — the examples of Egypt and Libya (and to some extent Tunisia) were making it abundantly clear that the main beneficiaries of this “springtime” were political Islamists from the the Muslim Brotherhood, to Ennahda Party (the Salafist Tunisian party), to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (an Al-Qaeda linked terror organization). The losers were increasingly the Arab Left, the secularists, and the religious and ethnic minorities.

It is simply a self evident premise that the so-called “Arab Spring” has resulted not in greater democracy and individual liberties across the Middle East, but in the political and military ascendancy of radical Islamist groups from North Africa to the Levant. It would shock most Americans to know that Washington has aided, and is currently aiding, radical Islamic groups that are indistinguishable from Al-Qaeda throughout the course of these revolutions. This occurred openly and most directly in Libya through American-led NATO bombing (after which the first flag to fly over the main Benghazi courthouse was that of Al-Qaeda), and has now long been occurring clandestinely in Syria, though certainly an open and increasingly acknowledged secret. The most radical insurgent groups the world has ever seen are now popping up all over Syria. It should come as no surprise that Syria’s vulnerable religious minority communities have been the first to feel the wrath of these groups.

Disturbingly, Syria is now being slowly liquidated of its Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities (or really anyone desiring a pluralistic and relatively secular nationalistic public order) — a reality that was set in motion near the very beginning of armed uprising in Syria. America, NATO, and Arab Gulf countries continue to give political and material support to a Syrian rebel movement that is bent on exterminating Christians, Alawites, Shiites, Druze, and Muslims that don’t share the same radical ideology. One popular chant routinely echoed in rebel dominated areas of Syria is “Christians to Lebanon and Alawites to the sea… .” Sadly, the seemingly endless number of takfiri insurgent groups unleashed on Syria are making good on that promise.

Pre-war Syria was certainly not ideal; but the fruit of revolution — a country thrown into a state of utter chaos and destruction, cyclic violence, and economic ruin for at least years to come — has revealed itself to be, for most common sense people, the greatest of all possible evils.
https://medium.com/news-politics/a-m...a-d06ff67c203c
__________________
Senast redigerad av arbetet 2018-05-28 kl. 06:13.
Citera
2018-05-28, 07:06
  #49874
Medlem
arbetets avatar
Lägger in lite av Noam Chomsky's syn på the Arab Spring och händelserna i Syrien här med anknytning till ovan:
The Arab Spring uprisings of early 2011 were highly exciting events of historic importance. Despite setbacks, significant gains have been achieved, and I suspect they will be lasting—very likely a prelude of more to come.

In Tunisia, France was the dominant imperial power and supported the dictator strongly in ways that were a considerable embarrassment. A French cabinet minister was even vacationing in Tunisia while the popular uprising was expelling Ben-Ali. In Egypt, the dominant influences were the United States and the United Kingdom. Both supported the dictator, General Hosni Mubarak, until the very end.

They then followed the standard script when a favored dictator faces internal problems: support him as long as possible, and when it no longer is—particularly if the business classes and the army turn against him—ship him off somewhere. Then be sure to issue ringing declarations about your love of democracy, and try to restore the old system as fully as possible.
The United States supported the elected Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohammed Morsi, which, crucially, left the military pretty much in charge. When the military overthrew the government and took full control in July 2013, the United States supported it with the usual formulaic comments about democracy.

I was also excited about the uprising in Syria, although the vicious reaction of the Assad regime turned the early nonviolent demands for reform into a murderous civil war that is destroying the society. In chapter 5, Reese Erlich shows that the conflict remains one between the Assad regime and major sectors of the Syrian people. But the war has become much more complicated because of intensified fighting between Sunni, Alawites, Shia, and other religious and ethnic groups, and the intervention into the conflict of jihadi groups with their own varying agendas.

The Sunni-Shia split, of course, goes back to the founding days of Islam. The Alawites were an early offshoot of Shia Islam. Ottoman Turks and French colonialists sought to exploit religious differences to maintain their rule. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, the occupation exacerbated low-level religious tensions, which have since been tearing Iraq apart and spread to the entire region—Syria in particular.

There is perhaps some hope for a negotiated, political settlement of the Geneva type. Russia and the United States could bring pressure to bear to end the civil war. It is a very slim possibility, but it is actually the only one that I can see that has any hope of saving Syria.

From the beginning, as Erlich shows in chapters 10–11, the United States and Israel have been wary of the Syrian uprising. Assad had, in fact, been relatively cooperative with the United States in recent years, sharing intelligence, absorbing huge numbers of people fleeing from the wreckage of the US invasion of Iraq, and generally conforming to US demands.

Interestingly, the United States and Israel did not undertake one fairly straightforward action that could have significantly helped the rebels. Israel could have mobilized its forces on the occupied Golan, which would have compelled Assad to move forces to the south, relieving pressure on the rebels. Israel is quite happy to see Arabs murdering each other, as Erlich documents in chapter 10 by interviewing Israeli analysts.

The United States has been helping expedite some arms flow to the rebels from the Gulf states and directly training selected rebels in Jordan, but otherwise not intervening extensively. The United States offered lukewarm support for UN negotiator Lakhdar Brahimi's Geneva peace initiative, the one (very thin) reed that might offer some hope of arresting Syria's plunge to catastrophe.

The US failure to bomb Syria after the chemical-weapons incident in August 2013 was highly significant. The Obama administration was unable to obtain virtually any international support. Even Britain wouldn't support it. Congress wasn't going to support the attack either, which would have left Obama completely out on a limb. So the Russian plan to dismantle Syria's chemical weapons was a godsend for Obama. It saved him from what would have been a very serious political defeat.

This would have been a perfect opportunity to ban chemical weapons in the entire Middle East. The Chemical Weapons Convention, contrary to the Obama administration position, does not refer just to use of chemical weapons; it refers to production, storage, or use of chemical weapons. Well, Israel has chemical weapons and has refused even to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The appropriate response would be to call for imposing the Chemical Weapons Convention throughout the Middle East, which would mean that any country that is in violation of that convention, whether it has accepted it or not, would be compelled to eliminate its chemical-weapons stores. Just maintaining those stores, producing chemical weapons—all of that is in violation of the convention. Of course, that would require that a US ally, Israel, give up its chemical weapons and permit international inspections. This should apply to nuclear weapons, as well.

The United States hasn't given up on possible future military action in Syria. In chapter 11, Erlich describes the various justifications offered for “humanitarian intervention.” Advocates argue that the Syrian Civil War is so horrific—with the possibility of hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths—that the international community must intervene with bombs and troops, though there is every reason to expect that as in other cases, the intervention would not be in the interest of the Syrians, but of those intervening, and would make the tragedy even worse.

Syria is a terrible atrocity. But there are much worse ones in the world. The worst atrocities in the past decade have been in eastern Congo, where maybe five million people have been killed. And the United States is indirectly involved. The government of Rwanda, which is a US client, is intervening massively, as is Uganda to an extent. It's almost an international war in Africa. How many people know about this? It's barely in the media. No one is calling for US humanitarian intervention to save people in the Congo.

The concept of “humanitarian intervention” is very old, and to find genuine cases is no easy task. In the 1990s, the concept became very fashionable in the West. The jewel in the crown was Kosovo, but the traditional victims were unimpressed. The summit of the Global South, usually ignored or ridiculed in the West, condemned “the so-called ‘right’ of humanitarian intervention” as another face for imperialism.

The outcomes of these grand enterprises and the reactions led to development of a new concept, “Responsibility to Protect,” or R2P. There are two crucially different versions of this doctrine. One was adopted by the United Nations in 2005. Apart from a shift of focus, it barely goes beyond well-established international law and practices.

A radically different version was produced by the commission headed by Gareth Evans, former Australian prime minister, who has since been hailed in the West as the guardian angel of R2P. The Evans version departs from the UN version in authorizing military action by regional groupings in the area of their jurisdiction, subject to subsequent acquiescence by the UN Security Council. The main regional grouping that can act this way is NATO, and it officially takes its area of jurisdiction as virtually the entire world.

It comes as no surprise that the traditional imperial powers adopt the Evans version and justify it on the grounds that the United Nations adopted R2P, concealing the fact that it is a crucially different version.

Finally, I would like to mention that Reese Erlich's reporting and investigative journalism around the world have been highly enlightening and, speaking personally, have been of great value to me in my own work on global issues and current affairs.

Noam Chomsky May 27, 2014 Boston
Erlich, Reese. Inside Syria: The Backstory of Their Civil War and What the World Can Expect (Kindle Locations 70-127). Prometheus Books. Kindle Edition.
Citera
2018-05-28, 07:45
  #49875
Medlem
arbetets avatar
Det är alltså i några nyckelpunkter jag anser att Chomsky har hamnat fel och då även vänstern i USA, även om man har sunda åsikter på saker som Israels roll. Det verkar vara som att den förhärskande uppfattningen är att den Arabiska våren var någon sorts förlösande demokratisk kraft som trots vissa tillkortakommande i stort sett var någonting bra och som kommer att leda till demokrati i MÖ någon gång i framtiden. Där går vi isär. Jag anser att det var det värsta som kunde hända och jag har nog en hel del MÖ-kännare med mig där. Inte ens i Tunisien har det fallit väl ut med salafister som styr och landet som en plantskola för jihadister. Man är numera den största jihadistexportören i regionen.

Denna tro på grupperingar som det Muslimska Brödraskapet är också märklig. Det finns inga skillnader mellan Ikhwan och andra salafister som wahabbisterna. Man har samma mål; ett shariasamhälle av det mest fundamentala slaget med allt vad det innebär. De är som några säger jihadister i kostym som bl.a. använder al-taqiyaa för att slå blå dunster i ögonen på framförallt liberala krafter i väst vilket får de mest bisarra konsekvenser som att ledaren för Women's March i USA är Linda Sarsour, en representant för MB och en ytterst obehaglig shariaförespråkare.

Sedan är det uppfattningen att det skulle finnas moderata rebeller i Syrien. Naturligtvis har det funnits demokratiska element men de har utgjort en mindre del av de stridande. Det har dessutom inte varit så att man har blivit radikaliserad p.g.a. Assad-regimen. De var redan från början klara med sina mål och inslaget av utländska krigare var påtagligt som vi nu får höra från vittnesmål från befolkningen.

Och nej, R2P är ingen bra grej helt enkelt i någon form. Risken är påtaglig att grupper med ont uppsåt utnyttjar detta vilket har varit uppenbart i Syrien. Även under den Arabiska våren såg vi det på annat hål som i Libyen. Beslutet av Obama att inte bomba Syrien efter den påstådda Sarin-attacken var inte p.g.a. att han inte fick stöd av andra västländer utan för att han nog fick in information som motsa att det var Assad som låg bakom: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymou...sh/whose-sarin Istället finns det anledning att tro att rebellerna låg bakom det som i andra fall: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188

Allt detta gör också att jag är mycket skeptiskt till sådant som kurdernas Rojava. Varningsklockorna ringer öronbedövande när vänstern i USA med Chomsky i spetsen demonstrerar för kurdernas sak och skriver på petitioner om att USA ska öka sin militära närvaro för att stödja kurdernas "demokratiexperiment" i Norra Syrien. Det är istället hög tid att USA och väst drar sig ur helt och hållet från de flesta konflikterna i MÖ
__________________
Senast redigerad av arbetet 2018-05-28 kl. 07:47.
Citera
2018-05-28, 08:59
  #49876
Moderator
vfs avatar
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av FlashyBear
Jag tror inte att fångade några, men om du gjorde det skulle de nog släppa dem direkt (mha ryssar?).

Jo, efter att ha visat upp dom i statlig TV skulle dom sedan släppas av "humanitära" skäl.

Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av FlashyBear
Trump/Macron skulle nog bomba sönder Syria direkt om det stämde resonerar jag. No?

Med stor sannolikhet ja.
Citera
2018-05-28, 09:03
  #49877
Medlem
arbetets avatar
Wow, och som jag antytt igår så tror jag Ryssarna ligger bakom detta:

Report: Israel, Iran engage in indirect negotiations over Syria fighting

The report said a Jordanian mediator carried messages between the sides.

Citat:
Israel and Iran engaged over the weekend in indirect negotiations in Jordan regarding fighting in southwestern Syria, according to a Saudi-owned website.

According to the Elaph website, the Iranians pledged not to participate in expected battles in southwestern Syria between President Bashar Assad’s forces and rebel groups, and Israel has made it clear that it will not intervene in the battles in the tri-border area, as long as Hezbollah and the Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias are not involved.

https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-C...medium=twitter
Citera
2018-05-28, 10:11
  #49878
Medlem
humanlifes avatar
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av arbetet
Wow, och som jag antytt igår så tror jag Ryssarna ligger bakom detta:

Report: Israel, Iran engage in indirect negotiations over Syria fighting

The report said a Jordanian mediator carried messages between the sides.

https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-C...medium=twitter
Israel har påstått liknande saker förut, som inte stämde. Så jag tror inte på detta förrän jag ser det bekräftat från Iran och/eller Syrien.
Citera
2018-05-28, 10:25
  #49879
Medlem
humanlifes avatar
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av vf
Jag tror ingenting, jag undrar vara alla hundratals västerlänningar är som SAA har tagit tillfånga.

Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av FlashyBear
Jag tror inte att fångade några, men om du gjorde det skulle de nog släppa dem direkt (mha ryssar?).

Trump/Macron skulle nog bomba sönder Syria direkt om det stämde resonerar jag. No?
Kan man motivera sina bombningar med att deras agenter har tagits tillfånga? Det vill man säkert göra, men det får ju inte läcka ut till media. För då börjar ju folk undra vad fan deras agenter gör tillsammans med terrorister som al-Qaida. Då skulle ju detta sjuka samarbete avslöjas för allmänheten och hela propaganda-bilden som de har serverat oss så länge, den skulle haverera.

Alltså måste man hitta andra motiv som är lämpliga för en större publik och som kan rättfärdiga bombningar. Och det är ju det man har hållit på med i åratal och det verkar ha varit en av White Helmets huvuduppgifter att arrangera gasattacker och sedan anklaga Assad för dem.

Och ibland lyckas man. Som i östra Ghouta. Där fanns också utländska agenter, som naturligtvis togs om hand. Och vad hände sedan? En påstådd gasattack som genast triggade USA, UK och Frankrike att skicka en massa missiler på Syrien. Allt tyder på att det inte ens var någon gasattack, utan syrebrist i tunnlarna, som gjorde att folk fick andnöd, som kunde avhjälpas snabbt.

Sic. Så går det till.
__________________
Senast redigerad av humanlife 2018-05-28 kl. 10:30.
Citera
2018-05-28, 10:27
  #49880
Medlem
Yaskos avatar
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av chimpsky666
Anadoula agency Bevisar din argumentativa nivå.

TAK är öppet motståndare till PKK och PKK tar inget ansvar för deras attacker.

Du vet att när man diskuterar Turkiets samarbete med islamistiska terrorister så berör man perioden innan militärt ingripande med turkiska armen.

Eller svärsonens lukrativa verksamhet, öppen gräns för världens jihadister, medicinsk vård till stridande jihadister och öppet stöd till Army of Conquest of islamistdrägg i Syrien så som al nusra, ahrar-al sham var oavsiktliga misstag?

Turkiets proxies i Afrin är i många fall ex-isis och majoriteten är definitivt radikala islamister.

Svara på frågan terrorist. Vem är TAKs ledare?
Citera
2018-05-28, 10:48
  #49881
Medlem
humanlifes avatar
Här säger en syrisk diplomat i Jordanien att det kanske inte blir några strider i Dara’a, för det är många i området som vill försonas med regeringen.

Och det vore ju det bästa!
Citat:
Syrian Regime Moves on Deraa, Will Not Attack Rebels if U.S. Guarantees Ceasefire

The Syrian regime it will not move against rebels in the southwest, after the United States warned it would take "firm measures" to protect a cease-fire there.

The Syrian Charge d'Affairs to Jordan told Russia's Sputnik news agency on Saturday that Damascus "does not need a military operation in the south" and said he hoped negotiations could resolve the issue.

"The Syrian government might not have to battle in the south," Ayman Alloush told the agency's Arabic-language service.

"There is a large bloc of people in the south who support the idea of reconciliation and want to return to the embrace of the homeland," he said.

"The state does not only think about winning through warfare. It wants to win through peaceful means," the diplomat added.

https://www.albawaba.com/news/syrian...sefire-1137842
Citera
2018-05-28, 12:27
  #49882
Medlem
FlashyBears avatar
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av arbetet
Wow, och som jag antytt igår så tror jag Ryssarna ligger bakom detta:

Report: Israel, Iran engage in indirect negotiations over Syria fighting

The report said a Jordanian mediator carried messages between the sides.



https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-C...medium=twitter


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...-idUSKCN1IT0U1
Only Syrian army should be on country's southern border: Russia
Citat:
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday that only Syrian government troops should have a presence on the country’s southern border which is close to Jordan and Israel, the RIA news agency reported.
Citera
2018-05-28, 13:51
  #49883
Medlem
arbetets avatar
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av FlashyBear
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...-idUSKCN1IT0U1
Only Syrian army should be on country's southern border: Russia
Putin - Trump - Kim - Moon for Nobel Peace Price 2018!
Citera
2018-05-28, 13:56
  #49884
Medlem
humanlifes avatar
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av FlashyBear
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...-idUSKCN1IT0U1
Only Syrian army should be on country's southern border: Russia

Men så här säger Lavrov egentligen, enligt artikeln:

“Of course, the withdrawal of all non-Syrian forces must be carried out on a mutual basis, this should be a two-way street,” Lavrov said at a joint news conference in Moscow with Jose Condungua Pacheco, his counterpart from Mozambique.

“The result of this work which should continue and is continuing should be a situation when representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic’s army stand at Syria’s border with Israel,” Lavrov said.


Han säger alltså att resultatet av de militära aktionerna skall vara att bara SAA skall finnas vid gränsen mot Israel. Och det är ju självklart. De allierade hjälper ju bara till.

Han säger inget om gränsen mot Jordanien.
Områdena det handlar om sträcker sig några mil in i landet och dessa nämns inte heller.

Man kan alltså tolka det som att man accepterar att bara SAA skall få slåss vid gränsen mot Israel.
__________________
Senast redigerad av humanlife 2018-05-28 kl. 13:59.
Citera

Stöd Flashback

Flashback finansieras genom donationer från våra medlemmar och besökare. Det är med hjälp av dig vi kan fortsätta erbjuda en fri samhällsdebatt. Tack för ditt stöd!

Stöd Flashback