June 6, 2013

Divide And Conquer: The Revolts In Syria And Turkey

For background, read:

Not every protest in the Middle East can be lumped into the "Arab Spring" current. This vague term has been used by malicious warmongers to legitimize both aggressive war (in the case of Libya) and foreign-driven terrorism (in the case of Syria).

Too many events are mischaracterized as expressions of the "Arab Spring." If some homeless guy lifts a finger in Iraq against the police, an opportunistic politician or religious demagogue goes in front of the media the next day and says "My brothers, this is the Arab Spring, this government must fall to meet the demands of this homeless man. Inshallah, a homeless spring shall come." That's an exaggeration, but the term "Arab Spring" has been taken advantage of.

And, of course, Western leaders have also jumped all over the "Arab Spring" label in order to defend themselves as being on the right side of history. John McCain and his ilk are most guilty of this. McCain has told both Russia and China that an Arab Spring is coming their way.

The Arab Spring is just a catch-all phrase that can be used in the service of any number of agendas, some good and some bad. There are those who sow rebellion and chaos in order to get into power themselves, or overthrow regimes that stand in the way of their agenda for hegemony. It is rarely about liberating the citizens.

Some politicians in the U.S. have supported violent protests and terrorist acts in Syria by saying it's the "Arab Spring." This is very dangerous. We've seen the fruits of this absurd thinking in Syria and Libya. Most of the time, exiles from these countries, backed by war-hungry interventionists, try to raise every protest to a level of significance that it doesn't deserve. If there is a protest in post-election Iran because a faction lost and doesn't want to concede then you'll see the media repeat day after day how there is an Iranian spring unfolding.

I'm generally in favour of protests and change, but the color revolution business that has been developed by the U.S. government blurs the line between legitimate political movements and foreign-funded insurrections. Not every movement for change turns out for the better for all who took part in the initial uprising. Example A: The Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979.

In Egypt, many people are wishing for the days of Mubarak back, because the economy and tourism have declined since he was driven from power. Morsi has not delivered freedom and happiness, and he won't be considered a serious revolutionary leader as long as he begs the discredited banksters at the IMF for nation-killing loans.

In Iraq, a lot of people are saying that all the U.S. managed to do was make Saddam Hussein look good.

It's hard to disagree with these people because at least the former dictators in both countries provided stability, security, and some level of economic prosperity that made their lives worth living. What has followed their iron-fisted reigns has been chaos, terrorism, economic destruction, sectarian conflict, and failed political leadership.


Here is an insightful comment that was posted on the website 'Moon of Alabama,' in the comment section for the article, "The Syrian Army Takes Qusayr":
@Noirette #27 "Why support demonstrators in Turkey who are against the one man show Erdogan, his authoritarian creeping escalating madness after 10 years or so in power, and his PO-lice, in a typical Twitter demo-revolution type thing? But not to do the same against Assad?"

I dont think anyone here has any issue with peaceful protesters, anywhere - Syria, Turkey, US or w/e.

Two things to consider for you why any sane and civilized person supports Assad:

1. Vast majority of Syrians support Assad, more so than Obama or Erdogan. Speaking of demonstrations, lets compare tiny ones in Syria (generally it were 100-1000, just one up to 20,000) and massive ones in Turkey (up to million so far) or US (OWS, etc). Its up to Syrians to decide whom they they want as a leader, yet West wants to deny that right.

2. Armed terror was unleashed on Syria by West/arabs, and small staged demonstrations was just a cover for violent government change to puppets regime. While in the West or Turkey massive demonstrations expresses legitimate people's concerns.

If tables are turned and 3rd parties would send to Turkey thousands tons of arms, billions of dollars and tens of thousands jihadists from around the World, then we could talk about Syria-Turkey comparison. Right now situations are so incomparable, that even apples to oranges are more alike.
Here is an excerpt from "So What Color is the Turkish “Revolution”? The Red Revolution™? The Crimson Revolution™?" by Scott Creighton:
"When the world is run by PR and marketing guys, they think they are clever enough to sell another color revolution the same way they sell a lawn mower.

If certain factions weren’t at least partially behind this latest uprising in Turkey then the New York Times certainly wouldn’t accept a full page ad for the cause. Try taking out one exposing the illegality of the settlements in the West Bank and you’ll see what I mean.

Yesterday I asked some questions about the timing of this new revolution and pointed out who stands to benefit. But for the most part, I was kinda on the fence as too whether or not it was legit. Today, there are several reports in the MSM that make me think it’s being “handled” and manipulated like the Green Revolution in Iran or the “uprising” in Russia a couple years back. This article on the marketing campaign behind it cinched the deal for me."