Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
who are you to state that
the only people with the right to decide whether he goes or not are the Syrian people, and not some pompous colonial prick in England, France or Washington .
And next, Syria?
- Thread starter Idris2002
- Start date
who are you to state that
the only people with the right to decide whether he goes or not are the Syrian people, and not some pompous colonial prick in England, France or Washington .
sunny jim
A pikey fluffy type
Spot on CR
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
when these people are happy to broadcast to the world videos of themselves mutilating and eating corpses, among other things , beheading other victims and cooking the heads on barbecues... where is the apparent bullshit in this story .
dont bother retracting, your remark is informative
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
maybe he thinks doing the Saudis bidding and being Al Qaedas airforce constitutes being a friend to Islam
If the issue is simply ego then the Russian Syrian initiative to dispose of the CW is an obvious face saver he could grab onto. Had he any sense hed take it
If not we can simply assume his motivations are nothing less than sparking an all out war with definite aims, the destruction of syria, Iran and Hezbollah followed by the full scale capitulation of the freindless Palestinians . He and his freinds believe they are in an endgame, with victory in sight if they stick to their course no matter what .
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
I won't. Without any evidence to back up the story it just remains another piece of Assad propaganda. Which some people seem happy to spout.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Or Russia or Iran.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Leaked Iranian letter warned US that Syrian rebels have chemical weapons
Syrian President Assad's strongest international backer, Iran, said it has warned the US about chemical weapons in rebel hands for more than a year.
As a primary backer of the Syrian government, Iran has argued vehemently against US airstrikes, warned that sectarian "fire" will spread, and that jihadi rebels may have been behind the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack that US officials say killed more than 1,400 people near Damascus.
According to leaked diplomatic correspondence, Iran has been warning Washington since July 2012 that Sunni rebel fighters have acquired chemical weapons, and called on the US to send “an immediate and serious warning” to rebel groups not to use them.
In a letter acquired by The Christian Science Monitor that was sent sometime in the spring, Iran told American officials that, as a "supporter" of the rebels, the US would be held responsible for any rebel use of chemical weapons.
Iran amplified those year-old warnings over the weekend in its strongest public comments to date linking the rebels with a chemical weapons, echoing Russia's dismissal of American assurances that President Bashar al-Assad's forces were to blame. The comments come as the US Congress prepares to vote on military strikes.
http://m.csmonitor.com/World/Middle...d-US-that-Syrian-rebels-have-chemical-weapons
Syrian President Assad's strongest international backer, Iran, said it has warned the US about chemical weapons in rebel hands for more than a year.
As a primary backer of the Syrian government, Iran has argued vehemently against US airstrikes, warned that sectarian "fire" will spread, and that jihadi rebels may have been behind the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack that US officials say killed more than 1,400 people near Damascus.
According to leaked diplomatic correspondence, Iran has been warning Washington since July 2012 that Sunni rebel fighters have acquired chemical weapons, and called on the US to send “an immediate and serious warning” to rebel groups not to use them.
In a letter acquired by The Christian Science Monitor that was sent sometime in the spring, Iran told American officials that, as a "supporter" of the rebels, the US would be held responsible for any rebel use of chemical weapons.
Iran amplified those year-old warnings over the weekend in its strongest public comments to date linking the rebels with a chemical weapons, echoing Russia's dismissal of American assurances that President Bashar al-Assad's forces were to blame. The comments come as the US Congress prepares to vote on military strikes.
http://m.csmonitor.com/World/Middle...d-US-that-Syrian-rebels-have-chemical-weapons
Last edited:
It appears things weren't what they seemed in Yabrud. Or things have changed quickly.
France24. 08/09/2013
Looks like he's going to take it. He better. Gets him out of a very tight spot. Vlad the impaler to the rescue possibly. Very hopeful sigh of averting international war but little comfort to the Syrians under Assad's bombs & shells. Too late to help them anyway. Sad for them. They're on their own pretty much except for a trickle of help from the outside compared to the flood of aid from Assad's pals.
Qatar bankrolls Syrian revolt with cash and arms
FT. May 16, 2013
$3 billion is hardly a trickle. Then there's what Saudi Arabia and the UAE have spent too.
Saudis Step Up Help for Rebels in Syria With Croatian Arms
NYTimes. February 25, 2013
All their money doesn't appear to be showing up on the battle field. Much is probably being stolen. Buying some AKs & RPGs can't match heavy weapons supplied by Russia or Quds force & Hez fighters. But there is hope now that Vlad's deal can avert a mid east explosion for now.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
With the anniversary of 9-11 tomorrow how the fuck did the US get to be on the same side as AQ?
I don't think it's that weird, Britain and the US have backed Islamist extremists since the 40s. This is just a reversion to type.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
Good. It would be a lot easier for them to bomb churches and force Christian villages to convert to Islam with artillery and fighter jets.
sunny jim
A pikey fluffy type
Don't suppose you have any links for that, or point me in the right direction? I tried googling but didnt really come up with much. Do you mean supporting the Muslim Brotherhood over Nasser, that kind of thing?
ska invita
back on the other side
Arming Taliban in Afghanistan to fuck Russia up in the Afghan Trap would be one case
http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/
From interview in 1998
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/
From interview in 1998
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
seventh bullet
sovietwave
The Taliban as an armed movement emerged and gained momentum in the early 1990s, a few years after the Soviet withdrawal.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Very interesting insight there from Brzinski, regardless of whether you agree with this kind of man you have to admit...his is a far more advanced game then what the cretins we have today are into.
I saw a clip of Brzinski visiting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, blond man with a tight face and a stiff manner with close-cropped hair, dark glasses and wearing a black suit under the hot Afganistan sun. The classic cold war spook... Mr Smith from the Matrix combined with the Cigarette Smoking man from X Files, this time played by that bloke who played in 60s classic... The Prisoner, Number Six. He was woodenly telling the warlords how the United States supports their struggle for freedom. He didn't smile.
Last edited:
teqniq
DisMembered
Hell, if you like you history laced with dollops of gung-ho patriotism, they even did a film about it:
Charlie Wilson's War
Apologies for the poor spelling but did the Taliban grow out of the Muja Hal Deen?
gosub
~#
No it grew out of being fucked off with internal corruption, and made a couple of bad choices of who it let stay as guests
eta Or rather, good choices, as its anti poppy stance wasn't that popular and would have been antagonistic through the couple of bad harvests had the war not proved a distraction
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
My understanding is that while the initial resistance to the Soviets grew out of traditional Afghan communities, and drew on old ideologies of "warrior's honour", the Taliban did not emerge directly from them. Rather, they were a creation of Pakistan's ISI spooks, and were recruitied among Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan. Kids in those camps grew up without the old warrior culture, which had not, anyway survived modern technological war in the 1980s. They were not only easy meat for military servce, but also for the Islamist ideology the Taliban (literally "students" or "seekers") brought with them.
It also grew out of Pakistan's desire to be able to control post-Soviet Afghan politics. People always conflated these groups, when they say "USA funded Mujahadeen/Al-Qeada/Taliban" as if they're all the same organisation when there's a lot more to it than that.
And the Taliban made some "bad choices" of who it let in, but remember al-Qeada was funded by wealthy individuals in the Gulf, men like Bin Laden had plenty of money, whereas the Taliban ruled over one of the poorest and more wartorn nations on earth. One of the reasons the Taliban let Al-Qeada stay in Afghanistan is that they got some kind of financial bonus from it, one they couldn't really turn down.
seventh bullet
sovietwave
In part. But I don't see how the Taliban, when they emerged to contest power by armed force with other former Mujahideen-turned warlords (with the exception of the Uzbek Dostum who fought on the Soviet side) in the 1990s, could 'fuck Russia up', considering the Soviet army withdrew years earlier, indeed the Soviet Union no longer existed. Mujahideen in Afghanistan does not necessarily mean Taliban.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
"Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells."With the anniversary of 9-11 tomorrow how the fuck did the US get to be on the same side as AQ?
Similar threads
