May 29, 2013

Syria - A Destruction, Not A Revolution

I. Compared To Obama, Assad Is An Angel

Which leader is worse for his people - the one who bans GMO products because it is poisonous and harmful, or the one who appoints the employees of Monsanto to senior positions in his administration? The answer is obvious.

The false charges against Assad, such the use of chemical weapons against his own people, as made by President Barack Obama and others, do not hold up against reality. That is not to say that Assad's government is not oppressive, but what government isn't? Look around the world: there is not one government that is perfect and absolutely just.

By the standards of the Syrian "rebels," every regime on earth deserves to be overthrown. And that's not realistic. So, let's not get carried away and get behind every "rebellion" in the Middle East or elsewhere around the world just because it is endorsed as good in the mainstream media.

Hateful and murderous individuals, who make up most of the violent opposition in Syria, cannot lead successful revolutions.

Why do these so-called "rebels" hate Assad with all their heart and soul but call on a bigger devil in Obama to arm them? The reason? They are stupid, short-sighted fools who will bring real tyranny to Syria if they achieve in toppling the Syrian government. 

At least Assad has the decency and wisdom to prohibit GMOs and poisonous food in his country, whereas Obama takes the opposite stance because he cares very little about the health of the majority of people, viewing them as worthless animals.

Here is the main difference between the two leaders - Assad is a shepherd, Obama is not. So for Obama to pose as the potential saviour of Syria and portray Assad as a monster that is eating the organs of his own children is ridiculous.

II. Syria - A Destruction, Not A Revolution

Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, says in this interview on The Real News that Syria is the center of many regional and international conflicts. There are so many conflicts playing out in Syria and so many actors vying for power that it is hard to keep track of it all. 

What is clear beyond any shadow of a doubt is that Syria is the site of a foreign-engineered destruction, not a bottom-up, internal revolution.

Simon Jenkins writes in his article, "Syria and the Middle East: our greatest miscalculation since the rise of fascism":  
Christianity, after centuries of similar bloodshed, has learned religious tolerance (though in Northern Ireland, Britain can hardly talk). Much of Islam has not. The one antidote lay in the rise of secular politics. This is the politics that Britain destroyed in Iraq and Libya, in the belief that it was bringing democracy and peace. It has brought chaos.

Britain's military judgment is no more coherent than its political. It thinks it can conquer Syria – which is what toppling Assad would require – by proxy. But sending weapons cannot make a difference, and will merely entice Britain into promising troops, unless it wishes to desert the rebels. Like American backing for the Taliban in the 1990s, the idea that "my enemy's enemy must be my friend" could yet see British special forces fighting alongside al-Qaida in Syria.

War holds a terrible appeal for democratic leaders. Most of Europe's rulers have other matters on their hands, but Britain and France, two nations whose ancient empires carved up the Levant between them, cannot keep out of it. They see national interest and danger where none exists. They cannot relieve Syria's agony, yet hope some vague belligerence might bring relief.

The reality is they hope that belligerence might draw attention from political troubles back home. That is the worst reason for going to war.
The writer "b" of the website Moon of Alabama writes in, "Syria: The Deadbeat Opposition And A Russian Checkmate":
The Syrian exile opposition is becoming irrelevant. It has been destroyed due to the rivalities between Saudi Arabia and Qatar and is now denounced by all other parts of the Syrian opposition. The U.S. has thereby lost one of its key political instruments to drive the Syrian government out. It now has no one to present as negotiating partner opposed to the Syrian government side in the planned Geneva II conference.
The U.S. has no "Syrian opposition" to support in Geneva. The exiles are totally discredited. The unarmed opposition in Syria has given up. The armed opposition in Syria is collection of disunited thieves and takfiris. Russia has the checkmate chance of deploying its S-300PM2 and may well use it.

What is the U.S. to do now? Escalate further and risk an ever widening war throughout the Middle East with heavy Russian involvement? Or will it get off its high horse and agree to Russia's demand to actively stop any additional Libyan weapon supply through Turkey and any other support for the violence in Syria? Are there other alternatives?