Maddening.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
Maddening.
Obama was a bit more calculated and less visceral than his predecessor, but that's not to mean the intention wasn't there prior to the events of the Arab spring. They were clearly waiting for the window of opportunity, and before we knew it, every anti-regime jihadist had been equipped with shiny new toys, courtesy of uncle Sam and the Gulf cartel.
I didn't look at that. Not interested. Was interested in the White Helmets. THIS is what I looked at:
http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/10/...l-peace-prize-nomination-should-be-retracted/
White Helmets Campaign for War NOT Peace – RLA & Nobel Peace Prize Nomination should be Retracted
Vanessa Beeley
Vanessa Beeley
21st Century Wire
‘A “prize for the champions of peace, meaning Suttner, IPB and the movement for peace throughout cooperation on a disarmed brotherhood of nations” – as promoted by the peace congresses. Nobel’s letters to Suttner leave no doubt that this was his intention and the, for eternity, legally binding, purpose of the prize.’ ~ Nobel Peace Prize Watch.
The awakened world is still reeling in shock from the Right Livelihood Award being given to the US and NATO state construct, the White Helmets. The White Helmets have been proven to be no more than a support network for Al Nusra Front and associated extremist terrorist groups. In many documented instances, the White Helmets are more than a support group and have been accused of carrying out criminal acts alongside the recognised US coalition armed and funded terrorist factions. Ultimately, the White Helmets contravene all international laws regulating the behaviour of a proclaimed humanitarian NGO.
In the following statement that will be presented to the board of the Right Livelihood Award, I lay out very clear evidence to support my argument that the RLA should be retracted and that the White Helmet’s Nobel Peace prize nomination is a travesty of what this prize should represent.
STATEMENT REQUESTING THE RETRACTION OF THE RIGHT LIVELIHOOD AWARD, GIVEN TO THE WHITE HELMETS.
My name is Vanessa Beeley. I am an independent investigative journalist, writer and photographer based in France. I contribute regularly to various independent media sites such as 21st Century Wire, the Ron Paul Institute, Globalresearch, Mint Press. I have recently returned from a four week stay in Syria from 24 July until 26th August. The first week, I went as a member of the US Peace Council delegation, and the subsequent three weeks I travelled independently to as many governorates as possible, including Aleppo, in order to continue my own investigation into the organisation known as the White Helmets.
My conclusion, after my eighteen-month long analysis and research into this organisation is that they are a US and UK Foreign Office construct, funded and equipped by nations that have a proven vested interest in their stated policy of regime change in Syria & a clear geopolitical agenda in the region.
The White Helmets claim to be neutral and ‘non-aligned,’ yet they actively promote and lobby for US/NATO state intervention, including a ‘No Fly Zone’ which violates Syrian sovereignty. The majority of legal scholars agree that enforcing a No Fly Zone is construed as an act of war. This is in direct violation of the fundamental principles which underpin authentic humanitarian work and certainly not deserving of the Rights Livelihood Award.
I respectfully request that the members of the Rights Livelihood Award committee review their award of this prestigious award to the organisation known as the White Helmets.
I believe strongly that this award has been given in error, perhaps because not enough evidence was presented to the committee. I ask the committee to consider the following, documented, and supported evidence:
The White Helmets claim to be a “neutral, impartial, humanitarian NGO, with no official affiliation to any political or military actor and a commitment to render services to any in need regardless of sect or political affiliation.” I will now present evidence that should demonstrate the illegitimacy of these claims:
1: The White Helmets receive funding from UK ($65m via UK Foreign Office), US (US State Dept via USAID $ 23m), Holland ($ 4.5m), Germany ($ 7.87m) and Japan (undisclosed sum from the Intl Cooperation Agency), Denmark (undisclosed sum) – via the Mayday Rescue “foundation” that was set up by the British ex-military trainer of the White Helmets in order to transfer funding to the White Helmets. The White Helmets also receive equipment and supplies from various EU member states. This funding is concealed behind the generic heading of “Emergency Health and Relief Support to the Population Affected by the Crisis in Syria”, through the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG-ECHO), formerly known as the European Community Humanitarian Aid Office.
2: The White Helmets were established in Gaziantep, Turkey, not in Syria. They are largely trained in Turkey and Jordan, not inside Syria.
3: The White Helmets are embedded exclusively in areas of Syria occupied by listed terrorist organisations including Nusra Front and ISIS, along with various associated ‘moderate rebels’ such as Ahrar al Sham and Nour Al Din Zinki. All these groups are responsible for carrying out ethnic cleansing operations and mass executions of the Syrian people. Nour Al Din Zinki was recently videoed beheading 12 year-old Palestinian child, Abdullah Issa. Like the White Helmets, all of these terrorist factions receive funding, training, equipment and support from the United States and its Coalition partners. A fact that is extensively documented.
4: During the situation in Madaya, Syria in January 2016, the White Helmets in Idlib were photographed attending demonstrations & carrying banners that were calling for the “burning and destruction” of the towns of Kafarya and Foua. These are two Idlib villages under full siege by Ahrar Al Sham & Nusra Front (Al Qaeda in Syria) since March 2015, partial siege since 2012. The siege ensures the starvation of villagers and daily shelling and sniping by Ahrar Al Sham and Nusra Front has killed over 1750 civilians during this time.
5: There is video and photographic evidence available that clearly shows the White Helmets participating in Nusra Front operations in the areas occupied or taken over by this organisation. There is one particularly damning video taken during the Nusra Front violent and brutal attack on Idlib City in March 2015. In this video White Helmet operatives are seen clearly beating a Syrian civilian prisoner of Nusra Front and circling the prisoner, mingling with heavily armed and hostile Nusra Front militia. Please watch:
6: The White Helmets have been filmed “clearing up” after a Nusra Front execution of a civilian prisoner in Northern Aleppo. Although the official statement from the White Helmets claims they arrived after the execution, the speed with which they appear (in video) immediately after the prisoner has been shot in the head, demonstrates clearly that they were on the scene and did nothing to prevent it.
7: Various other White Helmet operatives have posted videos of the torture and execution of Syrian Arab Army prisoners to their social media pages with celebratory comments. One such operative, Muawiya Hassan Agha, is alleged to have been “sacked” for his participation in such executions. However, despite various demands, an official statement has never been issued by the White Helmets to this effect. Neither have they publicly condemned the torture and execution of prisoners of war, an act that contravenes the Geneva Convention. Warning graphic footage:
8: The leader of the White Helmets, Raed Saleh, was deported from Dulles Airport in the US, April 2016. No real explanation was ever given for this decision. Mark Toner of the US State Department fielded questions from media but did (i) Admit to funding the group with $ 23m and (ii) suggest that Raed Saleh might have “extremist connections”. Raed Saleh has recently been allowed back into the US in September 2016 and spoke at the UN New York with the Dutch Mission. However, no explanation has been given for this reversal of the previous decision to deport Saleh.
9: The White Helmets are also referred to as the ‘Syria Civil Defence.’ However, there is an existing Syria Civil Defence. The REAL Syria Civil Defence was established in Syria in 1953. I met with crews in Aleppo, Lattakia, Tartous and Damascus during my four weeks in Syria. The REAL Syria Civil Defence were founder members of the ICDO [International Civil Defence Organisation] which is affiliated with the UN, WHO, OCHA, Red Cross, Red Crescent. The REAL Syria Civil Defence are still paying annual subscriptions to the ICDO of 20,000 Swiss Francs. The REAL Syria Civil Defence do operate in both terrorist and government held areas, they operate with equipment that has been decimated by the war & sanctions and they do not receive up to $150 m in funding from the US, UK and EU states. The Real Syria Civil Defence are recruited and trained inside Syria.
10: During interviews with the REAL Syria Civil Defence, they informed me that the Nusra Front and associated ‘moderate rebels’ who invaded areas such as East Aleppo, Raqqa, Deir Ezzor, Idlib, massacred crew members of the REAL Syria Civil Defence and stole the majority of their equipment in those areas, including fire engines and ambulances. Many of these armed groups then became White Helmet operatives. Testimony from the REAL Syria Civil Defence suggests that the White Helmets are acting as support for Nusra Front, ISIS and other heavily armed militia described as “moderate rebels”.
11: On multiple occasions, the White Helmets have been exposed staging rescue scenes for both photo and video, recycling images of children and incidents from the conflict in Syria, to support their narrative, editing video which misrepresents the scene in question, using images from a previous incident or even fake images altogether. There are many documented instances of this.
12: The White Helmets have been filmed describing Syrian Arab Army bodies as “trash” and one particular video shows them standing on top of a pile of SAA soldier’s bodies, whose boots have been removed or stolen. The White Helmets talk about the bodies in pejorative terms and they flick a victory V sign as the truck drives off.
13: There are many images documented, that reveal the White Helmet operatives carrying arms or posing with arms alongside the various armed militia including Nusra Front. There is also further footage from Idlib showing White Helmet operatives celebrating alongside Nusra Front militia after the massacre of Syrian Arab Army forces and Syrian civilians during this attack.
14: Adulatory publicity about the White Helmets is the result of a multimillion dollar sustained commercial marketing and social media promotional campaign via a network that is funded by George Soros and various US, UK and Middle Eastern enterprises. The PR network is as follows: Avaaz – Purpose – Syria Campaign – White Helmets. The funding connects back to these organisations and US State-funded entities who have a vested interest in events in Syria. This is also extensively documented.
15: Analysts have observed, the White Helmets achieve on average 4 or 5 videos per day, depicting their heroic rescue efforts. The REAL Syria Civil Defence have evaluated these videos and cast doubt as to the White Helmets being true first responders or USAR (Urban Search and Rescue) experts. They pinpointed various anomalies (i) the equipment used is too heavyweight for the delicate operation of finding bodies beneath collapsed buildings (ii) the treatment of injured bodies is dangerous, they are flung onto stretchers with no back support or neck brace, for example. Many of the paramedic procedures shown on film are also deemed questionable. The White Helmets rarely travel without a sizeable camera team or crew of mobile phone cameramen. The REAL Syria Civil Defence do not.
16: While in Aleppo, I conducted a short video interview with Dr Bassem Hayak of the Aleppo Medical Association, based in West Aleppo. Dr Hayak still has family trapped in East Aleppo. Dr Hayak told me that his family and the majority of civilians in East Aleppo (occupied by Nusra Front and an estimated 22 brigades of armed militants) do not know who the White Helmets are which begs the question, where are they conducting their much promoted humanitarian work? Dr Hayak also said that UN agencies in East Aleppo who work with the Aleppo Medical Association are not aware of the White Helmets.
In summary, this evidence points to the White Helmets being a US, UK, EU creation established in 2013, and not an independent NGO. It is a multi-million dollar US Coalition funded organisation. It is funded by governments involved & invested in the Syrian conflict. No one can rightly call this a grass-roots Syrian organisation.
There is an existing Syria Civil Defence that is being ignored by western media. Running parallel there is a vast fund raising network constructed to collect money which is funnelled into the pseudo White Helmets designed to replace the authentic Syria Civil Defence in the minds of the western public. The REAL Syria Civil Defence is crippled by US and EU sanctions, the White Helmets have never been affected by these sanctions, their supply chain via Turkey is unbroken.
Conservative estimates put White Helmets funding at over $150 million thus far, which is far more than any real NGO would ever require in a decade, much less 3 years. Tax payers in funding countries have a right to know precisely what their money is funding.
The evidence demonstrates that the White Helmets are sectarian not impartial. They are in many instances, armed not unarmed. The promotional material produced for the White Helmets such as the recent Netflix documentary film, is often produced outside of Syria, usually in Turkey, and with any field footage supplied by the White Helmets. Who has verified the authenticity of this footage, or photographs?
The White Helmets are feeding images of “humanitarian disaster” and “war crimes” to the very same western nations who are funding them, and to politicians and media outlets who are using these visual narratives, with the explicit purpose of lobbying for a US, UK Foreign Office proposed, “Safe Zone” or “No Fly Zone” in Syria. Recent history teaches us, this No Fly Zone policy carries with it the threat of reducing Syria to a Libya-style “failed state.”
Effectively, this organisation campaigns for an escalation of war in Syria.
Many of their ‘campaigns’ have since been discredited as “war fiction”, and yet they are being used by the US Coalition as justification for continuing and increased economic and diplomatic sanctions, sanctions which are a collective punishment on the Syrian people, while the US coalition persists with equipping and arming the various militia on the ground in Syria, including Nusra Front (al Qaeda in Syria).
This only serves to ensure even more suffering and bloodshed inside Syria.
The presentation of the Right Livelihood Award to the White Helmets will ultimately discredit the Right Livelihood Foundation. More crucially, the awarding of this prize to a suspect and fraudulent organisation serves to perpetuate a western-sponsored conflict in Syria which has only delayed the possibility of any real peaceful resolution.
We call on the leaders of the Right Livelihood Foundation to investigate the evidence presented in this statement and to retract the RLA award, if this evidence is proven sufficient to disqualify the White Helmets.
Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter.
Vanessa Beeley
US Peace Council member (part of recent US Peace Council delegation to Syria July 2016)
UK Column infographic depicting the US and NATO deep state connections of the White Helmets
All related links:
White Helmets and Mayday Rescue:
The Syrian Civil Defence: Wikipedia
21st Century Wire article on the White Helmets:
Syria’s White Helmets: War by Way of Deception ~ the “Moderate” Executioners
21st Century Wire compilation of most important articles and talks on the White Helmets:
Who are the Syria White Helmets
Original investigative report:
The REAL Syria Civil Defence Exposes Fake White Helmets as Terrorist-Linked Imposters
Cory Morningstar report:
Investigation into the funding sources of the White Helmets, including Avaaz, Purpose, The Syria Campaign
Open letter to Canadian MPs from Stop the War Hamilton (Canada):
Letter from the Hamilton Coalition to Stop War to the New Democratic Party in Canada ref the White Helmet nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize:
Open letter to Canada’s NDP Leader on Nobel Prize:
Letter to NDP from Prof. John Ryan protesting White Helmet nomination for RLA and Nobel Peace Prize.
Rick Sterling report:
White Helmets Deceive Right Livelihood and Code Pink
***
You complain about western biased media but this so called 'independent' journalist states the following on her website:
November 2016 – I was invited to Moscow, Russia with Mother Agnes de la Croix to repot on the illegal NATO state intervention and dirty war on Syria. During this time I met with deputy FM, Mr Bogdanov and MFA spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova.
https://thewallwillfall.org/about/
If you are going to dismiss western journalism because of bias, also apply the same rule to your sources.
Also like the Eva woman you have been propagating this person also appears to be a Russian stooge:
"I have appeared on RT Cross Talk, RT News, Press TV, Ron Paul Report, Sunday". Wire, Sputnik Radio
Last edited:
Look at what they are saying and the evidence they provide. Or not. Up to you. Predjudice is always an option.
To be fair, I doubt she'd be invited to media outlets on the other side of the spectrum since her sentiments hardly fit their narrative. Just the way it is.
LBC radio yesterday brought on a guest from the feckin Henry Jackson Society, and tried to convey him as this impartial, objective source of expertise in the region
LBC radio yesterday brought on a guest from the feckin Henry Jackson Society, and tried to convey him as this impartial, objective source of expertise in the region
Which ties in with what I said about 2011 and 2012. Yet Assad survived which, as I said, means the Americans either weren't fully committed or lacked the capability to take him out.
Do you think Assad would have survived if the Americans had been fully committed to his overthrow? An America that has had no problem historically removing various regimes as it saw fit suddenly struggled to take out a tin-pot Ba'thist dictator who was already on his knees? Why didn't they just do it in 2013 when Obama's 'red line' was supposedly crossed?
By fully committed I assume you mean an Iraq style boots-on-the-ground toppling? Yeah that might work conventionally but the consequences would be utterly disastrous - especially when you factor in Russia and Iran's affiliation with the Assad regime. Obama did try and grow a mandate for a more concrete intervention, but gained pretty much no support worldwide so he nipped that in the bud.
On the flip side, I don't think the opposition would have survived had it not been for the weapons and funding funneled in from the Gulf Arabs, some Europeans and the US, not to mention the huge influx of foreign jihadists. You would argue Assad is being propped up by the Iranians and Russians, but the propping up works both ways, and you could also argue the Iranian/Russian/Hezbollah intervention was seen as a necessary balancing response to the near-global effort in empowering the opposition factions. I don't think for a minute that the opposition to Assad in 2011 was anywhere near as strong and widespread as of the one to Saddam in the 1991 Iraq uprising.
Not necessarily, Obama could have amped up support for rebel forces to a much greater extent than he did, along the lines the US did in Afghanistan in the late 80s, complete with no-fly zone, etc. Libya 2011 would be another example.
Ultimately, and I think this is the point you're missing, Obama just never considered Syria a US interest worthy of that kind of commitment. And by 2013 he had obviously decided Assad being overthrown would be more trouble than it's worth.
To be clear, here's what I think the US has been doing, something more akin to their Afghanistan policy in the early-mid 80s:
"the goal of that policy is to ensnare Iran and Hezbollah into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible. This is exactly what the last two years have accomplished…. at an appalling toll in lives lost.
This policy doesn’t require any course correction… so long as rebels are holding their own or winning. A faltering Assad simply forces Iran et al into doubling down and committing even more resources. A faltering rebel movement, on the other hand, does require some external support, lest the Iranians actually win the conflict. In a related matter, arming the rebels also prevents relations with U.S. allies in the region from fraying any further...
...everything this administration has said and done for the past two years, screams deep reluctance over intervention. Arming the rebels is not the same thing as a no-fly zone or any kind of ground intervention. This is simply the United States engaging in its own form of asymmetric warfare. For the low, low price of aiding and arming the rebels, the U.S. preoccupies all of its adversaries in the Middle East.
The moment that U.S. armed forces would be required to sustain the balance, the costs of this policy go up dramatically, far outweighing the benefits. So I suspect the Obama administration will continue to pursue all measures short of committing U.S. forces in any way in order to sustain the rebels.
Now let’s be clear: to describe this as "morally questionable" would be an understatement. It’s a policy that makes me very uncomfortable… until one considers the alternatives. What it’s not, however, is a return to liberal hawkery."
https://www.google.ie/amp/foreignpo...els-its-the-realism-stupid/amp/?client=safari
No disagreement there.
Unless the whole planet consists of Northern America, Europe and Australia, I doubt that the whole planet was particlarly peaceful, let alone prosperous in the latter half of the 20th century.
Like I already asked you, can you name another half century where the world was more at peace and/or more prosperous?
There was a nice time around 89-90. Mandela released. Berlin wall down. Cold war effectively over. It's all gone a bit shit since then.
Iran-Iraq war, Gulf War, Tiananmen Square protests, Anfal campaign, massacre of Tamils.
Does anyone else believe Aleppo is the new Srebrenica?
That's your quote. So you're basically saying that thanks to the progressive west the whole planet was unusually peaceful and prosperous. That's only partially true and mostly concerns the so-called West, or the countries I've already mentioned. The rest weren't so peaceful, and forget about prosperous. So you're just saying "I don't know about you people, but we were quite comfortable."
Second time you've avoided my question. At this point I'm assuming you agree with my assertion that the latter half of the 20th century has been a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity, looking at the world as a whole. So I'm not sure why you seem to be still disagreeing with me?
Some statistics re peace and prosperity. And no, these don't just come from what was happening in the western world. These are all global data.
And that's not even taking into account all the other great achievements driven by the west, in areas such as human rights and global health initiatives.
That's interesting.Some statistics re peace and prosperity. And no, these don't just come from what was happening in the western world. These are all global data.
Poverty I think has somewhat been alleviated by globalisation and agricultural innovations.
A decline in deaths in conflicts is hardly surprising considering conventional warfare has changed dramatically. Soldiers are no longer charging over trenches en masse to certain death and great armies are no longer locked in battles of attrition spanning continents.
Mind you the threat of nuclear warfare can potentially nullify all this at the literal press of a button.
No, but it is the new Grozny.
The city was attacked using the same strategy and the results are the same.
Some statistics re peace and prosperity. And no, these don't just come from what was happening in the western world. These are all global data.
I understand what you're saying, I'm not sure it is due to anything inherent in the West though - empires keep the peace (within their borders and at great cost obviously), hence the Pax Romana, Pax Brittanica, etc. The second half of the 20th century was the first time the entire globe was covered by two empires, so it makes sense that peace was more widespread then. Note though that conflict still raged in the largely third world peripheries where they were in competition.
In any case, I'm not sure it's enough to warrant giving the West a pass when it comes to the specific context of today's Middle East - America's footprint there has undoubtedly been a much bigger factor in shaping the region and its troubles than Russia's since the end of the Cold War.
Last edited:
Yeah, there's a lot of nuance in interpreting the deaths due to wars over time. You'd think advances in technology means armies become better at killing but, like you say, they also help avoid the battles of attrition we saw in the great wars. Plus you should get less and less civilian collateral damage.
The absolute number of conflicts (pink circles) does seem relatively steady. So it looks as though, no matter what happens, someone on the planet will be fighting with someone else. If there's less people dying as a result, for whatever reason, then that's a good thing.
Last edited:
I think that's fair.
Although, ironically, it took an unusually non-interventional US foreign policy - under Obama - for events in the middle east to snowball into the massive humanitarian crisis we're seeing in Syria.
I tend to see Bush II's policy as the unusual one in the grand scheme of things, and Obama's as a return to a more typical US approach to foreign policy. Bush's was of course conducted in the extraordinary circumstances of post-9/11 America, but for me the destruction of Iraq in 2003 looms larger than any other factor external to the region in explaining what's happening today.
An Arab Spring type protest movement would certainly have happened sooner or later, and Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood current would have been major players no doubt. But the Iraq war gave incredible wind to the jihadis in a number of different ways, and it was of course the context in which ISIS was born.
Note even close. The green buses are evacuating the militants out of Aleppo. We all know what happened with Bosnian soldiers in Srebrenica.
@Pogue Mahone I disagree that Obama being non interventionist resulted in the Syrian disaster.
His half assed strategy is what has caused this long drawn out war. Supplying the rebels with just enough arms and money via backdoor channels and allowing the Gulf state arabs to do their thing, but not implementing a no fly zone was criminal. Let's not forget, the Russians simply filled the void the west left them - and that became the game changer.
He should either have been in or out - if the west doesn't help the rebels and forces arab states to not assist the rebels - this war would have been over a long time ago.
But, he did neither.
His half assed strategy is what has caused this long drawn out war. Supplying the rebels with just enough arms and money via backdoor channels and allowing the Gulf state arabs to do their thing, but not implementing a no fly zone was criminal. Let's not forget, the Russians simply filled the void the west left them - and that became the game changer.
He should either have been in or out - if the west doesn't help the rebels and forces arab states to not assist the rebels - this war would have been over a long time ago.
But, he did neither.
Can't argue with this.
You're helping make his point.
Was a bit of a throwaway comment tbf. I just find it interesting that the US is being accused of doing too little to intervene in this recent conflict and interfering too much in previous conflicts.
As I said a few posts, higher up, would be interesting to see how things panned out in the ME if the US had managed to abstain completely from any involvement at all, ever. But that was never going to happen, for a number of very good reasons.
So we end up with this long-running saga of trying to strike the right balance between intervening too much, too little or (what I'm hearing today) managing to do both at once and still getting it wrong. The one constant is criticism after the fact, no matter what approach they take.
As I said a few posts, higher up, would be interesting to see how things panned out in the ME if the US had managed to abstain completely from any involvement at all, ever. But that was never going to happen, for a number of very good reasons.
So we end up with this long-running saga of trying to strike the right balance between intervening too much, too little or (what I'm hearing today) managing to do both at once and still getting it wrong. The one constant is criticism after the fact, no matter what approach they take.
The conspiracy theorist in me suspect's that Obama's half arsed approach may have been intentional. Lock the country into perpetual warfare with no obvious winner in sight, forcing the Iranians and Russians to use considerable resources. Meanwhile, this empowers extremist elements in Iraq, forcing the country's hand into reinviting US presence after they had been unceremoniously kicked out a few years back.
All game theory perhaps, but entirely feasible IMO.
All game theory perhaps, but entirely feasible IMO.
There's not much can be said in response to this except "With great power comes great responsibility." Empires in the past have never had trouble accepting this.
No, I'm not. He did intervene - but, he did it in a manner of being a pussy.
I'm not against US intervention - but, if we were going to get involved, it should have been the whole nine yards alternatively, if we felt after Iraq and Lybia, we wanted to sit this one out - we should have done that. This strategy has NOT helped anyone - not the rebels and certainly not the poor people of Syria.
Also, this criticism isn't 'after the fact'. We've seen time and time again in the ME in the recent past - democratic movements/uprisings while genuine, don't have a strong base and end up being hijacked by Islamists - as has this.
And this is why I think Obama (a guy I voted for) failed -
2012 -
That red line was crossed repeatedly (this isn't up for debate) - what enormous consequences did Assad or for that matter the other players face??
Oh, gotcha. I'm an American, so supplying weapons to a foreign army isn't intervention; that's Tuesday's.
Good call. Bombing after bombing to drain life from Aleppo.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If Iraq hadn't happened, though, I'm pretty sure there'd have been a pretty hefty military intervention in Syria.
This is how the verified Russian Embassy twitter account responded to someone comparing the destruction of Grozny with Aleppo
Gotta hand it to them....they don't care how callous they come across
You made it sound like it was the West that created these wonderful conditions for the whole planet to live in peace and prosper, and I don't see it. Did the countries that we call the West live in a relatively peaceful atmosphere and got richer and richer in that time period? Absolutely. The rest of the world? Not so much.
I can't believe you're still quoting me while still refusing to answer my question. This is getting silly now...
I'll ask you again. If you can't or won't answer, please don't quote me again because this discussion is pointless. Name another half century where the world was more at peace and/or more prosperous? Please note, I'm talking about the whole world, so if you can name a period of time where the West wasn't peaceful/prosperous but everyone else was, then that's just fine.
Sickening. I was thinking about the Hama massacre as well.