What is Going On?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I cannot figure out what is going on here.

Look at this clip which is very good in total but especially starting on at minute 5 second 54:

HEATED: Rand Paul Storms John Kerry, Gets "Owned" at Syria Military Action Hearing - 9/3/2013 - YouTube

Notice Kerry's commentary focusing on this move by Obama being on behalf of Israel.

To support this I refer you to:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...ry-171669.html


1) Israel wants a strike. Once again, the question is why is Israel against Assad? For years the West and Israel have been able to send Assad various sunnis to be tortured to their heart's content.
2) Is it because Assad is starting to win and the goal is to make Assad and the Sunni insurgency fight a war of attrition thereby weakening both sides?
3) Why are Lindsay Graham and John McCain so gung ho about a strike? Usually the rule of thumb is that whatever those two are for is usually not good for America in general and not good for the world at all and certainly never good for indigenous people. For instance, both these senators preferred to stay in Iraq and want to perpetuate an Afghan presence. They also are intent upon an Iran strike. So almost reflexively, it becomes hard to understand why they would want to strike at Assad.
4) Most here have answered that it involved removing Iranian capability and the Iranian/Shiite crescent running now through Iraq and Syria and into Lebanon. Yet most here have also said that Iran is in cahoots with Israel and the US. Logically, the latter cannot be the case if they are striking at the Shiite crescent unless we accept that Iran's relationship with the US in Iraq and Afghanistan is not for friendship but rather for a mutual interest - but then we also have to accept that the US and Israel do really hate Iran and Iran hates them.

To summarize, based on these articles all I can come up with is that
A) The current strategy is to allow Assad and the Rebels to fight a lengthy costly war of attrition so that both sides are severely weakened and so that both of their benefactors (gulf states and Iran/Russia) spend tons of $$$ in their own Afghanistan.
B) These strikes that Obama plans are not meant to win the day for the sunni rebels but rather to simply stop Assad's progress.

[Mr. X]

anyone wo kills children with nerve gas needs to have a tomahawk rocket rammed up his ass.gl

[Admin Khan]

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION] Do you think Assad actually used chemical weapons?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

@BarakzaiAbdali Do you think Assad actually used chemical weapons?

Admin,

Make no mistake about it, I loathe Bashr Assad and think his father's Hama massacre and the Alawite rule of Syria is utterly and plainly wrong.

Would a man who did nothing about his security services disappearing and torturing sunni youths (the initial event that started the uprising) and then these men would go on to tell the grieving fathers to send their wives to the police station so that the police men could "make them more sons"...would he hesitate? No probably not.

But we are not one to talk, considering the US utilized as that protestor at the Paul and Kerry hearing said, White Phosphorus in Fallujah.

The Reagan administration said and did nothing when Saddam gassed Kurds and murdered a generation of Persians with Chemical weapons.

So I don't think the issue is whether he used chemical weapons or not as war is war.

I think its foolish to assume that in a war a guy with the same weaponry as other moderately developed nations would not utilize his arsenal to secure his rule.

Lincoln after all killed a massive swathe of the population to consolidate and federate these united states.

I am not going to stand up for Assad though and say he deserves the benefit of the doubt... rather I would prefer to say to Britania and her partners:

What moral ground do you have to stand upon?

My point above was that this is the most mysterious of the wars with the wrong people saying the wrong things. The clandestine services are not stupid - these guys are generally warning that the sunni rebels ideal situation would be a quick armed victory that allows them access to the Syrian arsenal as happened in Libya.

So that is why I think my end conclusion is:

This is a proxy war between Iran and the West/Israel - but the West/Israel also fears a decisive sunni victory and ascendency + access to and flow of more weapons in that area since Syria borders on Israel.

They will therefore continue to weaken Assad and Iran by making an already sanctioned Iran pour millions into defending Syria (perhaps billions) but they will also develop a database on the sunnis and in the mean time kill those sunnis in a clandestine fashion that they do not want to rule or win. They will use the war hardened sunnis to fight the bulk of the war but once a win is on the horizon they will use their partner's intelligence (Qatar and Saudi etc) to identify and kill sunnis they see as problematic.

This is my theory

[Admin Khan]

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION]
I find it hard to believe that Iran can wage such influence. Do you think the US is hesitant because of Iranian threats about flattening Israel?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION]
I find it hard to believe that Iran can wage such influence. Do you think the US is hesitant because of Iranian threats about flattening Israel?

Iran can really ratchet up the problems for them in Iraq and Afghanistan if it wants to. The situations in these countries as it stands benefits Iran. These wars were a boon to them in that Iran basically got to get two of their mortal enemies whacked for free (Sunni Talibano, and Saddam Hussein their mortal enemy). But it also created a diversion for the US to be bogged down in and that was ideal for them - their enemies locking horns and distracted but the end game suits them especially in Iraq.

Hezbollah is also known to have a superb operating structure for that region - having beaten back the modern and brutal Israeli military and that is their proxy.

So Iran can actually do a lot of damage using the above factors alongside their direct arming of Assad.

I dont think Iran would ever directly take on Israel because that would be a catastrophic mistake resulting in the US having cate blanch to get involved militarily. As we know, the US Congress and these lackeys have no qualms about wasting American lives and treasure to defend Israel at any costs even if the populace could care less.

Rather, I think what Iran will do if the US did a quick removal of Assad would be to create further problems for them elsewhere.

I am sure the answer of some here will be: You are blind, this is all a play with Iran and the US in a secret love affair.

I just cannot accept that without evidence. I certainly agree as I said above that Iran hates sunnis and the US has its own sunni issues so they collaborate when it suits them - but there is hardly any way that the same people that deposed the US backed Shah would "love" the US. Rather, what they love is the US governing elite putting America into stupid circumstances that benefit Iran.

[Tiger Khan]

Iran can really ratchet up the problems for them in Iraq and Afghanistan if it wants to. The situations in these countries as it stands benefits Iran. These wars were a boon to them in that Iran basically got to get two of their mortal enemies whacked for free (Sunni Talibano, and Saddam Hussein their mortal enemy). But it also created a diversion for the US to be bogged down in and that was ideal for them - their enemies locking horns and distracted but the end game suits them especially in Iraq.

Hezbollah is also known to have a superb operating structure for that region - having beaten back the modern and brutal Israeli military and that is their proxy.

So Iran can actually do a lot of damage using the above factors alongside their direct arming of Assad.

I dont think Iran would ever directly take on Israel because that would be a catastrophic mistake resulting in the US having cate blanch to get involved militarily. As we know, the US Congress and these lackeys have no qualms about wasting American lives and treasure to defend Israel at any costs even if the populace could care less.

Rather, I think what Iran will do if the US did a quick removal of Assad would be to create further problems for them elsewhere.

I am sure the answer of some here will be: You are blind, this is all a play with Iran and the US in a secret love affair.

I just cannot accept that without evidence. I certainly agree as I said above that Iran hates sunnis and the US has its own sunni issues so they collaborate when it suits them - but there is hardly any way that the same people that deposed the US backed Shah would "love" the US. Rather, what they love is the US governing elite putting America into stupid circumstances that benefit Iran.

I agree, Iranians dont have such influence on Afghanistan. Moroever, Iran is to muslim world like russia is to the west. They keep flipping their policies and cannot be trusted.

[Tiger Khan]

I agree, Iranians dont have such influence on Afghanistan. Moroever, Iran is to muslim world like russia is to the west. They keep flipping their policies and cannot be trusted.

Also Iran can only create problems in muslim countries that have majroity Shia population. Almost all of those have problems already. (Iraq, Lebanon (Hizbollah will become weak if assad is removed)), Azerbhaijan?!, Iran aint that influencial.

[Toramana]

Abdali hate Asad because he dealt with Akhwanis effectively---as it should be.

[tor_khan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...et-8789506.htm Worth reading.

Whilst we are on the subject, I find it ironic that President Obama (Nobel Laureate for Peace, 2009) should be at the forefront for entering into direct conflict with Syria.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Abdali hate Asad because he dealt with Akhwanis effectively---as it should be.

Lol, not as effectively as this though right? Sublimely effective manner to deal with a secular militant

[Shah-i-Kot]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...et-8789506.htm Worth reading.

Whilst we are on the subject, I find it ironic that President Obama (Nobel Laureate for Peace, 2009) should be at the forefront for entering into direct conflict with Syria.

How are you suprised? He supported/supports direct conflict in Afghanistan.

I found it ironic then.

[tor_khan]

How are you suprised? He supported/supports direct conflict in Afghanistan.

I found it ironic then.

I know what you mean. Actually, I think that the Nobel system is flawed.

[khushal]

mY QUESTION WOULD BE DID THE RUSKIES GIVE ASSAD THE GREEN LIGHT TO USE THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS BECAUSE THE ONLY THING THAT IS PREVENTING AN AMERICAN ATTACK ARE THE RUSKIES. WOULD ASSAD USE THEM KNOWING IT WOULD PROVOKE THE AMERICANS WITHOUT HAVING THE RUSKIES WATCHING THEIR BACK.

I THINK THE RUSKIES ARE AFRAID OF THE SO CALLED ISLAMISTS COMING INTO CENTRAL ASIA WHICH IS WHY IT SEEMS THEY HAVE DRAWN THE LINE IN SYRIA. AFTER THAT OBAMA/PUTIN MEETING, OBAMA SEEMS TO HAVE BACKED OFF FROM AN ATTACK.

[tor_khan]

^You could also ask yourself why the Americans etc. back various proxies around the Islamic world. There are a lot of players out there willing to manipulate the sentiments of ordinary folk.

There is another recent thread on the forum that asks Why Muslim Blood Is Cheap.