The Syrian conflict
Posted on August 30th, 2013

Michelle Alexander

With the escalation in the civil war in Syria, the USA is contemplating military action. This time however, they may have to do it without the UK, as Prime Minister David Cameron had to back down due to the House of Parliament voting against military action until more evidence is presented. This is a clear reflection of British MPs bowing to the will of the people, instead of just rushing Britain into another war.

The USA and its allies say it has evidence to prove the recent chemical attacks were carried out by the Syrian Government. They also claim that the death-toll from those chemical attacks is at 1300. However, initial investigations by the UN team in Syria seem to point out that evidence (not yet irrefutable) so far gathered implicates the rebels and not the Syrian Government in the chemical attacks. Furthermore, the death toll put forward by Doctors without borders indicates that the total number of civilians that perished in the chemical attacks is at 355, almost 4 times less than the figure put forward by the USA.

Isn’t it possible that the chemical attacks may have been caused by the rebels or hidden extremist groups themselves in order to convince the world of their cause by laying the blame at Assad and his government, which would allow the rebels/hidden extremist groups to get the weapons and aid they have been asking for? What would Assad have to gain by using chemical weapons?

When it comes to Syria, Obama’s own words may have cornered him. A year ago President Obama gave a speech stating that if Assad’s government used chemical weapons, that would cross a red line. As at now, over a 100,000 are reported to have been killed. Chemical weapons have been used (it is still early days to automatically state that the Syrian government was involved). Millions have become refugees. Parts of Syria are being reduced to rubble. A red line has been crossed”¦ several times over. Therefore, why did USA and its allies wait till the recent chemical attacks before deciding to take military action?

 Aiding Syrian rebels “”…” good or bad?

Plans to aid Syrian rebels bring to mind the time the USA aided the likes of Osama bin laden and the Mujahedeen in driving out the Russians from Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the end result for the aid given was repaid with suicide bombings, the World Trade Center attacks, abuses and rights violations in Afghanistan and so on. Aiding the rebels in Syria may backfire in a similar fashion as it is believed that several extremist groups are operating in the guise of rebel groups.

 Obama’s legacy”¦ similar to that of George W. Bush and the Iran/Iraq wars?

President Obama – “Let me be clear,” he said in an interview on CNN. “Our goal will not be to effect rƒÆ’†’©gime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave.” “I want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal,” he said. “This is consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past.”

Not to effect regime change or end the war? Simply do something at random? No purpose or goal for military action? Then why get involved with the Syrian conflict at all?

 If President Obama goes ahead military action in Syria, he might as well renounce/be stripped of his Nobel Peace prize, as he did not end the Iraq/Afghanistan wars nor has he closed down the holding cells in Guantanamo Bay. Western Intervention did not work in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya, etc, where by now, radicals are in charge or those countries are in total chaos.  

3 Responses to “The Syrian conflict”

  1. Nalliah Thayabharan Says:

    Syria has become a prime front for al Qaeda originally created by CIA. The Al Nusrah Front have had more than 10,000 fighters at the end of 2012; not including 3,000 Free Syrian Army fighters who have defected to the Al Nusrah Front as of the beginning of May. and not including Muhajireen Army, led by a Chechen commander and is closely allied to the Al Nusrah Front. By early 2013, the Al Nusrah Front had imposed sharia, law, in Aleppo. and vast areas of eastern Syria under its control.
    Now to support al Qaeda, Barack Hussein Obama wants to bomb Syria to bring Syrians under al Qaeda’s rule and its Sharia Law.

  2. Lorenzo Says:

    When Muslims kill Muslims, non Muslims are safe.

    This is the ugly truth.

  3. Ananda-USA Says:

    The Rationale is Crystal Clear: At the URGING of Israel, the US is moving to destroy one-by-one the Shia Muslim block of countries (Iran, Syria, Lebanon’s Hezbollah) that form the SUPPORT BASE for Iran which is allegedly developing nuclear weapons … on whatever fake pretext the US can conjure up.

    It has NOTHING TO DO WITH Chemical Attacks by Syria; it is only a pretext for taking Syria apart on the eve of total defeat of the Sunni rebel forces (aided and abetted by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, US, and other Western Powers) by the combined efforts of Syria, and Hezbollah and Iranian volunteers. In fact, the SOURCE of these Chemical weapons, and WHO deployed them, has NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. The Govt of Syria is getting FRAMED for something it did not do; it could very well be a US dirty trick.

    Barak Obama has promised to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program before he leaves office, three years from now … and time is getting short for him to deliver on that promise to Israel. The dismantling of Syria and cutting off access through Syria to Lebanon’s Hezbollah to isolate Iran, is the first step. Why is Israel’s needs so important to the US. If you have to ask that, then you know NOTHING of the stranglehold the Jewish Lobby has on the US Government, Economy, News Media and Civil Organizations.

    Iraq’s majority Shia Govt is helping its fellow Shia in Iran and Syria permitting overflights of transport planes from Iran to Syria over Iraqi territory. Beyond that, they can do nothing at this point, beset by Sunni terrorists of their own blasting over 3,000 people to death in the last month alone. In this way, by ssetting its people to make war on each other, Iraq is permanently neutralized. It is Syria’s turn to be subjected to that American Solution now.

    In my view, Iran has EVERY RIGHT as a sovereign nation to develop nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel cycle facilities, and …. as a country threatened daily with invasion and attack by its enemies… nuclear weapons for self-defence.

    Just as other nuclear powers have successfully lived under the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine since Hiroshima and Nagasaki for about 65 years, Iran as a nuclear power can also be accommodated by relying on its self-interest in survival.

    The Hypocrisy of the situation arises in that every one of Iran’s enemies, including its foremost enemy Israel (with the 5th largest nuclear weapons stockpile), are nuclear powers, enjoying the immunity from attack as a result of their nuclear arsenals, but assuming complete liberty to threaten and destroy other countries with their conventional weapons. That is HYPOCRISY!

    If they want to ensure non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, they should get together and destroy their own nuclear weapons stockpiles and weapons production facilities FIRST, and THEN enforce a non-proliferation regime on the world as a whole. Until then, they are behaving as the NEOCOLONIALIST HYPOCRITES, and are deluding themselves if they think they are convincing ANY others!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2018 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress