Syria and the western backed opposition

[REDSOX]

There have been many stories in the media about the 'Atrocities' carried out by the assad regime in syria against so called brave opposition fighters and unfortunately some on the left wing have fallen for it. These fighters are terrorists and murderers, yes there is a measure of genuine opposition to assad but that has been superseded by an armed terror campaign backed by western and saudi/qatari interests. Assad as we know is no angel but i think the armed oppositionists are a lot worse. Check out the following article by charlie skelton from the guardian of all papers about the reality of this opposition www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking?INTCMP=SRCH (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking?INTCMP=SRCH)

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The U.N. has confirmed that the Assad government did not create a "massacre" in Hula recently, much less a "genocide" (Turkey), but killed 37 armed combatants.
The west and their regional puppet governments are arming terrorists and backing disgruntled parts of the Syrian bourgeoisie.

[Binh]

Skelton's article is garbage. Forget about who is talking on CNN, focus on who is fighting in Damascus. Where is his analysis of the coordinating committees operating in Syria?

[REDSOX]

What precisely is so garbage about skelton's article? It is a very good piece of investigative journalism far better than the biased rubbish from the mainstream media and some on the left who continue to have wet dreams about a workers and peoples uprising in Syria. This is no popular revolution against the baathist regime there, and any genuine protests there have been like these so called co-ordination commitees have either been co-opted or superseded by terrorists and thugs. I am no advocate of the baathists and President assad but i am cerainly not in favour of a western/saudi backed terror campaign.

Dont be fooled
Dont be manipulated

[Binh]

What precisely is so garbage about skelton's article? It is a very good piece of investigative journalism far better than the biased rubbish from the mainstream media and some on the left who continue to have wet dreams about a workers and peoples uprising in Syria. This is no popular revolution against the baathist regime there, and any genuine protests there have been like these so called co-ordination commitees have either been co-opted or superseded by terrorists and thugs. I am no advocate of the baathists and President assad but i am cerainly not in favour of a western/saudi backed terror campaign.

Dont be fooled
Dont be manipulated

There was a general strike in Damascus.

Skelton's piece focuses on the exiles, not the revolutionaries in the streets.

[REDSOX]

There was a general strike in Damascus.

Skelton's piece focuses on the exiles, not the revolutionaries in the streets.

I am afraid you are deluded. We must defend syria against these western backed terrorists. If this resistance is progressive why have they not condemmed imperialism and capitalism or offered support to the palestinians. This movement is controlled or has been co-opted by the CIA saudi reactionaries and their free syrian mercenaries in syria. We must give conditional support to syrian government against this western/saud/qatari backed attempt to destroy this state. A defeat for syria and a victory for imperialism would mean a puppet regime doing israel's and the west's bidding and isolating the palestinians.

[islandmilitia]

There was a general strike in Damascus.

Skelton's piece focuses on the exiles, not the revolutionaries in the streets.

You really are grossly dishonest. In your trashy article posted in the most recent thread, you yourself downplay the importance of strike action by saying that strikes in themselves cannot serve as a defense against attacks on civilians by the regime, which actually ignores the ways in which successive strike waves in Egypt (particularly over 2006-08) produced networks which proved central to the revolutionary process, including in terms of self-defense. If strikes are so unimportant or ineffective that it is necessary to look to foreign intervention instead, then why cite strikes as evidence popular mobilization? In addition, and more importantly, the forces which have been most important for organizing strikes in Syria, including the dignity strikes, have been the LCCs - and yet it has precisely been the LCCs who have also been the most consistent in opposing foreign intervention in the form of military assistance, which is something you support. So you cannot have it both ways - you cannot point to the strikes as evidence of a popular dynamic whilst at the same time celebrating the prospect of foreign intervention, because in doing so you completely ignore the political arguments of the strike activists themselves.

[REDSOX]

Despite titanic pressure Syria is holding out against imperialism and its lackeys in saudi arabia and qatar as well as the terrorists and useful idiots in syria itself. I strongly belief that syria must be conditionally defended by all anti imperialists against this barbaric attempt to recolonise syria. The stakes are high victory for this free syrian army is a victory for the imperialists and the tyrants of the gulf states, defeat for syria means defeat for hezbollah and the isolation of the palestinians then the imperialists will move onto the ultimate target IRAN. I do wish that some on the left would see this instead of fantasising about a workers uprising that does not exist!!

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Is it inconceivable to completely oppose both Assad and elements of the armed opposition? If some or all of the opposition fighters are agents of imperialism, we cannot support them.
However, we cannot also support a tyrannical regime that suppresses it's citizens ("The authorities arrest democracy and human rights activists, censor websites, detain bloggers, and impose travel bans. Arbitrary detention, torture, and disappearances are widespread. Although Syria's constitution guarantees gender equality, critics say that personal statutes laws and the penal code discriminate against women and girls. Moreover, it also grants leniency for so-called honor crimes" - wiki / human rights watch).
Why does it have to be a 'support Assad or the rebels' arguement? Geniunely curious about this, I'd like to hear your views comrades.

[Binh]

You really are grossly dishonest. In your trashy article posted in the most recent thread, you yourself downplay the importance of strike action by saying that strikes in themselves cannot serve as a defense against attacks on civilians by the regime, which actually ignores the ways in which successive strike waves in Egypt (particularly over 2006-08) produced networks which proved central to the revolutionary process, including in terms of self-defense. If strikes are so unimportant or ineffective that it is necessary to look to foreign intervention instead, then why cite strikes as evidence popular mobilization?

I never said strikes were unimportant. Stop wasting time by creating idiotic strawmen.

[islandmilitia]

I never said strikes were unimportant. Stop wasting time by creating idiotic strawmen.

In this (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=1097) article you criticized the ISO for looking to the working class by arguing that strikes would not allow the working class to defend itself against the forces of the regime - that doesn't mean you think that strikes are totally unimportant, which I never even implied, but it does involve a neglect of the ways that strike waves do give rise to organizations and networks with the capacity for self-defense and further mobilization, which is exactly what happened in Egypt, both before and during the revolution. In any case, you neglected to answer the key issue, which is that the forces in Syria who are pushing for strikes - the LCCs - are opposed to intervention, such that there is a direct conflict between their politics and your support for foreign military intervention, and you are overriding the politics of the LCCs in support of your own positions.

[Devrim]

There was a general strike in Damascus.

I would be really surprised if this were true. Could you please provide some links?

Devrim

[Devrim]

Is it inconceivable to completely oppose both Assad and elements of the armed opposition? If some or all of the opposition fighters are agents of imperialism, we cannot support them.
However, we cannot also support a tyrannical regime that suppresses it's citizens ("The authorities arrest democracy and human rights activists, censor websites, detain bloggers, and impose travel bans. Arbitrary detention, torture, and disappearances are widespread. Although Syria's constitution guarantees gender equality, critics say that personal statutes laws and the penal code discriminate against women and girls. Moreover, it also grants leniency for so-called honor crimes" - wiki / human rights watch).
Why does it have to be a 'support Assad or the rebels' arguement? Geniunely curious about this, I'd like to hear your views comrades.

It doesn't. This is a reasonable position and is not held only by you.

Devrim

[ckaihatsu]

Why does it have to be a 'support Assad or the rebels' arguement? Geniunely curious about this, I'd like to hear your views comrades.


The reason is because the genuinely revolutionary momentum was lost at the point that armed militias in Libya made a bid for power and hoisted the flag of the former monarchy.

If revolutionary forces in Syria were anything like Tahrir Square we might be talking differently here, but since Syria is now the epicenter of a new inter-imperialist bourgeois geopolitical Cold War civil war, it's effectively becoming another Palestine.

With no better options it's preferable to counter Western imperialism, at the geopolitical level, by supporting self-determination for the *country* of Syria, regardless of who happens to be running it.

[A Marxist Historian]

The reason is because the genuinely revolutionary momentum was lost at the point that armed militias in Libya made a bid for power and hoisted the flag of the former monarchy.

If revolutionary forces in Syria were anything like Tahrir Square we might be talking differently here, but since Syria is now the epicenter of a new inter-imperialist bourgeois geopolitical Cold War civil war, it's effectively becoming another Palestine.

With no better options it's preferable to counter Western imperialism, at the geopolitical level, by supporting self-determination for the *country* of Syria, regardless of who happens to be running it.

Hold on, the US troops haven't started landing yet, and drones are not yet flying to Syrian targets.

If and when the USA and other imperialists physically attack Syria, then it will be the time to defend Syria. That hasn't happened yet, and meanwhile you have an ugly civil war, in which both sides are equally reactionary.

Just because the imperialists are slipping some aid to the side they prefer doesn't mean that this is an imperialist war against Syria, let's pay some attention to reality.

Syria is not Libya. Yet, anyway.

-M.H.-

[ckaihatsu]

Hold on, the US troops haven't started landing yet, and drones are not yet flying to Syrian targets.

If and when the USA and other imperialists physically attack Syria, then it will be the time to defend Syria. That hasn't happened yet, and meanwhile you have an ugly civil war, in which both sides are equally reactionary.

Just because the imperialists are slipping some aid to the side they prefer doesn't mean that this is an imperialist war against Syria, let's pay some attention to reality.

Syria is not Libya. Yet, anyway.

-M.H.-


So, what, the jury's still out on this one? Not enough millions and military advisors installed into Syria yet -- ?

My understanding is that the only reason the imperialists *aren't* going at a faster clip is that *they themselves* can't seem to find a common basis around what they're doing for purely nationalist separatist reasons. It looks like their standard "humanitarian" propaganda cover has finally worn thin and they can't use *that* tried-and-true bullshit anymore to slip past the public this time around. (This is probably compounded by the particularly intensified nationalist factionalism engendered by the Euro crisis.)

We shouldn't shy away from plainly saying that Syria is the "dark back-alley" of bourgeois geopolitics right now, and that no one is interested in providing better lighting. It really *is* a soft-world-war starting up, due to stalling and declining world GDP and the counter-revolutionary reaction against the Arab Spring.

[Per Levy]

The reason is because the genuinely revolutionary momentum was lost at the point that armed militias in Libya made a bid for power and hoisted the flag of the former monarchy.

If revolutionary forces in Syria were anything like Tahrir Square we might be talking differently here, but since Syria is now the epicenter of a new inter-imperialist bourgeois geopolitical Cold War civil war, it's effectively becoming another Palestine.

With no better options it's preferable to counter Western imperialism, at the geopolitical level, by supporting self-determination for the *country* of Syria, regardless of who happens to be running it.

so your opinion is to support assad, who is in the pockets of russian imperialism? so only choices are support either western or eastern imperialism. sorry im not into the whole "lesser evil" thing.

[Lynx]

It seems pointless to support a tyrant and a regime whose days are numbered, regardless of your position on resisting imperialism.

[ckaihatsu]

so your opinion is to support assad, who is in the pockets of russian imperialism? so only choices are support either western or eastern imperialism. sorry im not into the whole "lesser evil" thing.


Hey, that's real cute, Slick -- you've managed to 'one-up' me by ignoring reality and making your *own* fantasy choices -- ! Can I come and live on whatever planet *you're* on -- ?

This isn't some contrived ritual to demonstrate fealty through voting on a bourgeois sack-race -- it's *what's happening*, and you can "abstain" from it if you like, but the situation nonetheless gets shittier. Again, look at what happened to Libya once NATO was invited in by the locals.





With no better options it's preferable to counter Western imperialism, at the geopolitical level, by supporting self-determination for the *country* of Syria, regardless of who happens to be running it.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Is it inconceivable to completely oppose both Assad and elements of the armed opposition? If some or all of the opposition fighters are agents of imperialism, we cannot support them.
However, we cannot also support a tyrannical regime that suppresses it's citizens ("The authorities arrest democracy and human rights activists, censor websites, detain bloggers, and impose travel bans. Arbitrary detention, torture, and disappearances are widespread. Although Syria's constitution guarantees gender equality, critics say that personal statutes laws and the penal code discriminate against women and girls. Moreover, it also grants leniency for so-called honor crimes" - wiki / human rights watch).
Why does it have to be a 'support Assad or the rebels' arguement? Geniunely curious about this, I'd like to hear your views comrades.

Apart from the ruling religion, that sounds quite a bit like the USA. Women earn a lot less than men which the legal system does no thing about in all the west (in Germany women earn 20% less than men), Guantanamo, i don't think i have to go into the widespread use of US forces' torture techniques all around the world, over 10,000 (Occupy) protesters and union activists have been arrested in the USA this year alone, racist crimes are not penalised, and on top of that the US just used the death penalty on a mentally handicapped person who shot a banker at age 19.

I can most definitely tell you that if the Syrian state is not successful in fighting the armed "rebels", the next regime will most likely be even worse than the USA.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Apart from the ruling religion, that sounds quite a bit like the USA. Women earn a lot less than men which the legal system does no thing about in all the west (in Germany women earn 20% less than men), Guantanamo, i don't think i have to go into the widespread use of US forces' torture techniques all around the world, over 10,000 (Occupy) protesters and union activists have been arrested in the USA this year alone, racist crimes are not penalised, and on top of that the US just used the death penalty on a mentally handicapped person who shot a banker at age 19.

I can most definitely tell you that if the Syrian state is not successful in fighting the armed "rebels", the next regime will most likely be even worse than the USA.

Not sure what your point is here, because I don't remember throwing my lot in with the US...in fact didn't even mention the US. Should I refrain from criticising any government or regime in any country, unless I'm willing to mention that the US sucks too?
My point was I am on no one's side here; I'm not willing to support either side on the ground in Syria, nor the various reactionary and imperialist interests eagerly circling above.

[A Marxist Historian]

So, what, the jury's still out on this one? Not enough millions and military advisors installed into Syria yet -- ?

My understanding is that the only reason the imperialists *aren't* going at a faster clip is that *they themselves* can't seem to find a common basis around what they're doing for purely nationalist separatist reasons. It looks like their standard "humanitarian" propaganda cover has finally worn thin and they can't use *that* tried-and-true bullshit anymore to slip past the public this time around. (This is probably compounded by the particularly intensified nationalist factionalism engendered by the Euro crisis.)

We shouldn't shy away from plainly saying that Syria is the "dark back-alley" of bourgeois geopolitics right now, and that no one is interested in providing better lighting. It really *is* a soft-world-war starting up, due to stalling and declining world GDP and the counter-revolutionary reaction against the Arab Spring.

That is exactly the point. Around Libya, you had a unified imperialist assault on the country. Syria? Not so clear. Syria unlike Libya is a Russian ally, and Russia is these days just another capitalist country with definite imperial pretensions, which has given Syria considerable military aid, and whose borders are a lot closer to Russia's than Libya's are. If you're not clear on that, just ask Putin, he'll set you straight.

So yes, it's a dark back alley of bourgeois geopolitics, and until it gets clearer just what is actually going to happen, jumping in bed with Assad, a bloodthirsty pro-capitalist reactionary just as bad as the rebels, is premature to say the least.

A few million bucks thrown to the opposition and some military advisers are not going to overthrow Assad. Syria is one of your more important countries in the Middle East, not an overblown desert oilarchy like Libya. If Obama really wants to overthrow him they would have to take serious military action, and have to deal with the opposition of Russia and China.

So my guess is that he won't. He is just trying to pressure Assad in the hope of persuading him to take a deal. Which is quite possible.

And also to look tuff for the elections. If there is no war before election day, I don't think there will be one. If Obama decides he wants to go to war after the elections, when he doesn't have to worry about his popularity anymore, it would more likely be with Iran, which unlike Syria has oil, so that would be worthwhile from his POV.

But just because I don't think Obama really wants to go to war with Syria, doesn't mean it won't happen anyway, this sort of scene is how wars break out. And Israel has been itching to go to war with Syria for a long time. And in that case, yes, we'd have to defend Syria against imperial assault. But, hopefully, that won't happen.

-M.H.-

[ckaihatsu]

That is exactly the point. Around Libya, you had a unified imperialist assault on the country. Syria? Not so clear. Syria unlike Libya is a Russian ally, and Russia is these days just another capitalist country with definite imperial pretensions, which has given Syria considerable military aid, and whose borders are a lot closer to Russia's than Libya's are.


Agreed. It's noticeable that the Western imperialist powers are less-than-gung-ho on presenting a solid presence and sales pitch this time around. Their efforts seem to be falling flat, and it's turned into something more like cajoling rather than a team spirit that sweeps through into brisk action.





So yes, it's a dark back alley of bourgeois geopolitics, and until it gets clearer just what is actually going to happen, jumping in bed with Assad, a bloodthirsty pro-capitalist reactionary just as bad as the rebels, is premature to say the least.


For the trillionth time here on this forum, there is a difference between a *country* -- in the sense of a location of denizens -- and the person who has assumed control of its matters of business and state.

Maybe a rough comparison here would be the outpouring of world sympathy shown to the people of the U.S. after the events of 9/11 -- this wasn't an *endorsement* of President Bush at the time from the world's population. There's a difference.





A few million bucks thrown to the opposition and some military advisers are not going to overthrow Assad. Syria is one of your more important countries in the Middle East, not an overblown desert oilarchy like Libya. If Obama really wants to overthrow him they would have to take serious military action, and have to deal with the opposition of Russia and China.


Yes, we're seeing that.





So my guess is that he won't. He is just trying to pressure Assad in the hope of persuading him to take a deal. Which is quite possible.

And also to look tuff for the elections. If there is no war before election day, I don't think there will be one. If Obama decides he wants to go to war after the elections, when he doesn't have to worry about his popularity anymore, it would more likely be with Iran, which unlike Syria has oil, so that would be worthwhile from his POV.

But just because I don't think Obama really wants to go to war with Syria, doesn't mean it won't happen anyway, this sort of scene is how wars break out. And Israel has been itching to go to war with Syria for a long time. And in that case, yes, we'd have to defend Syria against imperial assault. But, hopefully, that won't happen.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Agreed. It's noticeable that the Western imperialist powers are less-than-gung-ho on presenting a solid presence and sales pitch this time around. Their efforts seem to be falling flat, and it's turned into something more like cajoling rather than a team spirit that sweeps through into brisk action.

For the trillionth time here on this forum, there is a difference between a *country* -- in the sense of a location of denizens -- and the person who has assumed control of its matters of business and state.

Maybe a rough comparison here would be the outpouring of world sympathy shown to the people of the U.S. after the events of 9/11 -- this wasn't an *endorsement* of President Bush at the time from the world's population. There's a difference.,,



You make a valid point, I formulated that a bit carelessly. Yes, if the USA starts bombing Syria or invading Syria, then fighting against that means defending Syria, not defending Assad. But we aren't there yet, and it is not at all certain that we are going there.

Certainly we should oppose all imperialist intervention into the Syrian civil war. But let's not talk about "defending Syria" until Syria is actually attacked. So far it's just petty stuff, not too effective.

-M.H.-

[ckaihatsu]

You make a valid point, I formulated that a bit carelessly. Yes, if the USA starts bombing Syria or invading Syria, then fighting against that means defending Syria, not defending Assad. But we aren't there yet, and it is not at all certain that we are going there.

Certainly we should oppose all imperialist intervention into the Syrian civil war. But let's not talk about "defending Syria" until Syria is actually attacked. So far it's just petty stuff, not too effective.

-M.H.-


But more than mere neutrality and ambivalence are called for here, since it (should be) obvious that the war machine requires destruction for its growth.

There have already been efforts during this year to at least *counter* the war-mongering and initial attempts on the part of NATO to barge into Syria. These efforts have *not* been misplaced, and it's even possible that the public is not as knee-jerk regarding intervention into Syria as it was about intervention into Libya.

[A Marxist Historian]

But more than mere neutrality and ambivalence are called for here, since it (should be) obvious that the war machine requires destruction for its growth.

There have already been efforts during this year to at least *counter* the war-mongering and initial attempts on the part of NATO to barge into Syria. These efforts have *not* been misplaced, and it's even possible that the public is not as knee-jerk regarding intervention into Syria as it was about intervention into Libya.

We should all be saying US and EU Hands Off Syria, for sure. But it's premature to root for Assad vs. the rebels at this point. They are a scummy lot, but Assad is just as bad. And they aren't yet simply US or Israeli puppets, though that most certainly could happen.

-M.H.-

[Rocky Rococo]

they would have to take serious military action, and have to deal with the opposition of Russia and China.

I don't know about that. We've seen this kind of pre-war "defiant" posturing from those parties before, but when the US and its "Coalition of the Billing" ramoras go into action, C & R are nowhere to be seen or heard on the topic, while still doing daily business with Uncle Sam and his Money Tree. I believe "craven" is the correct word to describe C & R in their relations with the US.

[ckaihatsu]

We should all be saying US and EU Hands Off Syria, for sure. But it's premature to root for Assad vs. the rebels at this point. They are a scummy lot, but Assad is just as bad. And they aren't yet simply US or Israeli puppets, though that most certainly could happen.

-M.H.-


Fortunately, you've already addressed this....





You make a valid point, I formulated that a bit carelessly. Yes, if the USA starts bombing Syria or invading Syria, then fighting against that means defending Syria, not defending Assad.

[ckaihatsu]

[EmergencyResponseforUSAttackonIranorSyria] Tony Cartalucci: US Prepares For Direct Intervention in Syria



US Prepares For Direct Intervention in Syria

As FSA proxies fail and psychological operations falter, US prepares more direct (and desperate) approach for long-sought regime change.

by Tony Cartalucci http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/

July 22, 2012 - As it becomes increasingly clear that last week's "surge" by NATO-backed so-called "Free Syrian Army" terrorists was a failed psychological operation, coordinated with meticulously timed assassinations the day of the UN Security Council vote designed to stampede the Syrian government out of power, the FSA's foreign sponsors are preparing the public for a more direct intervention while desperately attempting to maintain the illusion of chaos and the imminent collapse of Syria's government.

Contradicting NATO's narrative, was Thierry Meyssan in Damascus, Syria who reported that Syria's continuity of government seamlessly moved forward after the assassinations last week, and that state institutions are still standing and very much functional. He describes Syria's latest unrest as the result of a coordinated NATO-backed terrorist operation aimed at creating confusion and panic, coupled with Western propaganda - and warns that more operations are likely on the way.

The Telegraph's, "Bashar al-Assad's Syria is now in a death spiral," and the Guardian's "Syria endgame: who and what will emerge from the ruins?" both desperately attempt to write off the Syrian government as already finished, an unsubstantiated reoccurring narrative being repeated daily by the West. Both articles however, categorically fail in qualifying their premises with subsequent facts - instead they depend on rehashing the initial violence that accompanied last week's assassinations - violence that has already been adequately dealt with by Syrian security forces.

In New York Times' article, "US to Focus on Forcibly Toppling Syrian Government," is all but an admission that indeed NATO's FSA terrorists have failed, and that what is in reality imminent, is the restoration of order by the Syrian army after over a year of foreign subversion and armed infiltration. Essential to the West's plan, is now fabricating a justification the US, Israel, and the Gulf despots currently do not have - to more directly intervene before the limitations of NATO's proxy forces are irrevocably exposed.

To achieve this, the Western media has decided to continue depicting Syria as "collapsing" even as security has been fully restored in Damascus, border crossings retaken after NATO-harbored terrorists struck from across Syria's borders, overrunning small platoon-sized garrisons, and now it is confirmed that bolstered Syrian border defenses near Daraa on the Jordanian-Syrian border, entirely balked FSA terrorists.

Despite this, the Western media is still reporting "battles" in Damascus, that have "spread" to Aleppo. Aleppo being another relatively unscathed city, is being purposefully attacked in order to enhance NATO's campaign to terrorize, panic, and divide the Syrian people. Already, however, Syrian troops have begun security operations to surround and neutralize terrorist elements, just as they have done already in Damascus.

But before the violence ebbs, at least, before the Western media finds it no longer tenable to report battles that have subsided days ago, the West has stampeded through several declarations. New York Times' article, in addition to admitting more direct military intervention is being prepared, admits that the US and France are putting their proxy "Syrian National Council" in place to lead a "transitional government."

The West's problem is that not a square-inch of Syrian territory is held by NATO's terrorist proxies - unlike in Libya where NATO proxies were operating out of Benghazi - raising the specter that some larger military intervention emanating from Syria's borders will take place. The most likely location of such an operation would be via Turkey to establish a seat of power for the Western client regime.

To justify more overt Western intervention, an incredible amount of time and energy has been invested in preparing the general public for the prospect of a "chemical attack."Syria has never deployed its chemical weapons, nor does it stand to gain from any such deployment, tactically, politically, or geopolitically. The only beneficiaries of such an attack would be NATO, Israel, and the Gulf despots, who could then use it to justify the "forcible toppling" of the Syrian government they now openly seek. If chemical weapons are deployed in Syria, it will most certainly be the work of NATO and its FSA proxies, using Libya's admittedly pilfered and proliferated arsenal.

The announcement that indeed the US and France are maneuvering their client regime into place, while they plan on openly intervening on behalf of the so-called "Free Syrian Army," is the final nail in the "opposition's" legitimacy, exposing them as place holders of Western geopolitical aspirations in Syria, and in the Arab World. Earlier it was reported that the Syrian opposition was literally being coached and tutored by the US State Department, via the US government-funded US Institute of Peace (USIP) who is literally writing Syria's "new" constitution, as well as engineering the entire "transitional" process on their behalf.

Syria and its allies, should they remain resolved and react only to the actual conditions on the ground can continue to balk Western ambitions by standing united, as they have throughout their history. For now, it appears the West will be happy to divide Syria along sectarian lines, forcing the government's supporters to flee to ethnic enclaves. This means that NATO death squads will be focusing primarily on attacking minorities - a campaign that seems to have already begun.

Above all, skepticism and vigilance is needed to objectively analyze further developments, with further NATO machinations all but assured to follow.



-----



US is Writing Syria's New Constitution - Tutoring SNC for Take Over

Syria's opposition and their "transitional government" are whole-cloth creations of the US State Department.

by Tony Cartalucci


http://www.uofmosaic.ca/images/website-images/united_states_institute_of_peace_logo3.jpg?sfvrsn= 0


July 22, 2012 - The US State Department, via the "US Institute of Peace" is working directly with Syrian "opposition" groups to formulate a "government" to put into place, if and when NATO covert military operations succeed in collapsing the Syrian state.

The report written by Foreign Policy magazine titled, "Inside the quiet effort to plan for a post-Assad Syria," indicates that the US State Department-funded USIP plans on releasing a report soon, detailing the US-crafted government being planned. The USIP, which already publishes details of how it has crafted, created, and is continuing to manage and facilitate the NATO-installed client regime now running Libya, constitutes nothing less than implementation of modern-day imperialism.

The USIP claims that it is involved in not only "advising" the Western-backed Libyan government, but that it is also involved in, "constitution making, transitional justice, women rights" and "education." The USIP, US government-funded, will also be writing Syria's "constitution" as well - which they are now calling a "transition strategy document."

Foreign Policy magazine, in an attempt to water down the implications of the US government literally crafting the client regime they plan on placing into the vacuum their US-Israeli-Saudi-Qatari mercenaries (FSA) are attempting to create, by claiming:

The absence of Obama administration officials at these meetings, even as observers, was deliberate.
"This is a situation where too visible a U.S. role would have been deeply counterproductive. It would have given the Assad regime and elements of the opposition an excuse to delegitimize the process," [Steven] Heydemann said.
Steven Heydemann is heading the USIP Syrian project.

Unfortunately for this line of thinking, the USIP is in fact a direct functionary of the US government, and more specifically the US State Department, with acting members of the US State Department, including Michael Posner and members of the US Department of Defense, including James Miller, serving on the USIP board of directors. Other compromising BoD members include Amnesty International chairmen and policy makers drawn from Fortune 500-funded think tanks like the Hoover Institution and big-oil's Belfer Center.

To complicate matters further for the so-called "Syrian opposition," prominent members of the movement, including Radwan Ziadeh, is actually a "senior fellow" of the US-funded institution - meaning the opposition leaders were drawn from US institutions, not Syria. The Guardian's article, "The Syrian opposition: who's doing the talking?" has covered this in depth, illustrating that Ziadeh's background is the rule, not the exception.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K0IB1rrA-6k/UApkwzJxLzI/AAAAAAAAB_M/g8q-0wNaPy8/s400/RadwanNED.jpg


Readers should recall that US State Department's Michael Posner, also serving on the USIP BoD, conceded in an AFP report in 2011 that the US had been funding, equipping, and training "activists" from across the Arab World 2 years in advance for the allegedly "spontaneous" "Arab Spring." These included activists from Syria who created the rhetorical predication for the violence now unfolding across Syria.

This admission by the US State Department and the head of USIP's Syrian project indicates the absolute illegitimacy of the so-called "Syrian opposition," - a complete contrivance of the US government, a manifestation of its foreign policy toward Syria - and in no way representative of the Syrian people. The opposition is literally directed by the US government who is forming for them a government to replace the one they are purposefully destroying through a series of mutually supported economic sanctions, military attacks, and diplomatic undermining.

[A Marxist Historian]

I don't know about that. We've seen this kind of pre-war "defiant" posturing from those parties before, but when the US and its "Coalition of the Billing" ramoras go into action, C & R are nowhere to be seen or heard on the topic, while still doing daily business with Uncle Sam and his Money Tree. I believe "craven" is the correct word to describe C & R in their relations with the US.

Well of course. But Syria is not Libya, it is a very important country.

Putin did not hesitate to defy Washington when he invaded Georgia, as that affected vital Russian imperial interests. Russia has a serious interest in not letting the US overthrow an important Russian ally in the Middle East.

That doesn't mean that Russian tanks are going to start rolling south, but it does mean that Russia, with China at its side given all the anti-Chinese stuff Obama has been pulling lately, will do everything possible to queer America's pitch. Already, Russia and China have prevented the US from using the UN as a cover, which definitely makes intervention more difficult.

-M.H.-