This past week, Russia ordered a Syrian Airbus A320 passenger jet to land because they thought it was carrying illegal cargo that was to be for terrorist use. It turns out, it was legal military radar equipment. I think this was a bad call on Russia's part. However, the ground crews were responsible for loading the plane and making sure there were no suspicious items.
I have no idea where you get your source of news. You have had it wrong. It was Turkey who forced down the Syria jet, and the Russians were furious because there was a Russian crew on-board. Russia said the Turks had endangered the Russian citizens onboard, and Syria called the act - Piracy. I agree, because forcing someone's commercial jet to land is an act of piracy. Turkey had been trying to start trouble with Syria from day one. Those "rebels" in Syria are mercenaries supplied by NATO primarily through Turkey.
I think you're seriously misinformed Vashstampede, because what you're implying is 2 things here: 1) That one day, the Nato chiefs wake up and decide to create trouble with Syria. It doesn't matter that Nato is really short of money these days and mercenaries are extrememly expensive, or that Syria has never posed any threat at all to the Alliance (to Israel maybe, but not to the Alliance). It's irrelevant that Nato countries are predominantly of the Christian religion, and the Assad regime has protected the rights of the Christian community in Syria much more safely than a hypothetical new regime based on Sunni islam, like in Egypt or possibly more radical jihad. So without any motive, Nato decides to create problems for Syria, all the region and herself. Sorry Vashstampede, that's totally illogical IMHO. and 2) That the population of Syria that opposes Assad watches how the regime attacks their homes with artillery, tanks, planes, helicopters, snipers, shabiya militia and so on, and yet this opposition does absolutely nothing to fight back, leaving it all in the hands of foreign mercenaries. Because remember rebels are mercenaries, not Syrians. No, that's simply not human nature, anyone would fight back in those circumstances. And these scenes of street fighting crossing all our TV's in Western Europe are invented, are they? The rebels shouting "Allah Akhbar with a perfect Aleppo accent are all actors? The reports coming in from multiple human rights organisations and independent media are all falsified? I don't believe that.
The mercenaries are cheap because they aren't Europeans or Americans. 20~30% of the casualty so far in the entire conflict are government soldiers. The ratio is way off, because no civilian can all the sudden fight the government forces on equal footing even if they want to. I have seen it quite clear that these "rebels" are no ordinary civilian turned "rebels". In one scene, a government tank was rolling on the street, then all the sudden a missile hit it and destroyed it. You tell me if "civilians" have that kind of equipments. Several reports said it quite clear that the rebels are "getting paid" for fighting. Whether they are Syrian or not, if they get paid to do the fighting, then they are mercenaries. The weapons they get from are mostly through Turkey border with Syria. NATO is behind the whole thing, just like in Libya.
I'm glad you were able to correct me Vash. I did not know that. Unfortunately our news sources here in the U.S. are not the most reliable. I have one question about your last post. Turkey is a NATO country. Why would NATO back the Syrian rebels in a fight against Turkey?
@ Pilot2fly, I really doubt the news source you read was telling everyone that Russians forced down the plane. You read it wrong. Just like how you read my post wrong. NATO is backing Syria rebel against Syria government. Turkey is a part of NATO and Turkey is a part of the backing rebel. I really do not see anywhere in my post stating anywhere close to what you claim I said.
Vashstampede, the conflict is considerably complex. As I see it, the present situation has developed into a good example of a proxy war between the Sunni Islamic gulf oil states like Saudi Arabia on the one hand, and Shii Iran on the other. And the population of Syria are caught up in it. The rebels didn't get their weapons all of a sudden: if you cast your mind back to the first few months of the Arab Spring last year, when Mubarak and Gaddafi were overthrown, the first demonstrations in Syria were peaceful. Assad, probably advised to do so by his Shii backers in Iran and Hezbullah, brutally repressed these peaceful demonstrations by putting snipers on rooftops to shoot at demonstrators. They even shot at people attending funerals of victims of demonstrations. Didn't you see these images on TV, or do you think they're faked? So what do you do if you're a citizen of Homs, say, and the regime is killing and arresting all your family? Of course you fight, but it takes time for the weapons to arrive. It's not a "sudden" armed uprising. Look at the casualty figures of the conflict for those first few months: there are hardly any regime losses. Then the gulf states opposed to Iran decide to help out by providing RPG's and small arms to the emerging rebel army and sending them yes, through the frontier with Turkey. But that doesn't mean at all that NATO is paying mercenaries here. If NATO were supplying the rebels, why haven't they given them anti-aircraft missiles that the rebels are asking for? I saw an interview with a Syrian army colonel on TV, he was in hospital having his arm patched up after a tangle with the rebels in Aleppo. He said quite rightly that there was too much foreign interference in his country, and I entirely agree with that. Too much interference from governments like Iran supplying Revolutionary Guards (sorry, how silly I am, my mistake there, I meant to say pilgrims) and Russia continuing to stock Assad's war machine with new tanks, helicopter gunships and jets despite repeated pleas in the forum of the UN and from human rights organisations that those weapons would be used against the civilian population. The Airbus intercepted and inspected by the Turks was carrying state of the art radar equipment, right? Not really a civilian cargo is it?
@ Steed, You can't believe what the mass media tell you. I remember it quite clear in the case of South Ossetia/Georgia/Russia war. It was Georgia attacked South Ossetia by bombing their capital city overnight and killing over 1,000+ civilians in their sleep with rockets and artillery. On CNN back then a reporter was standing on the screen and saying "Behind me Russian aircraft are bombing a Georgian airport"... while in fact anyone with their own eyes can see it was rocket launchers firing rockets... the same rockets that killed over 1,000 civilians in South Ossetia in their sleep and provoked a Russian counter-attack. Yeah, mainstream propaganda are THAT shameless in telling obvious lies. Both Bush and Rice even said in serious "straight" face "Russian must stop aggression immediate" as the whole American propaganda was calling the event as "Russia invaded Georgia"... The same kind of lying campaign has happened over and over in anything more serious than medicare. Same thing happening in Syria right now is just like what took place in Libya. Foreign sponsored coup try to take control of a sovereign nation. Russia has every right to continue to do business with a legit government. "killing civilians", that's the lamest excuse. Why would a government has nothing better to do to shoot unarmed civilians? It's the "rebels" who started the shooting, not the other way around. If it was truly a "people rise up" kind of rebelling, it would be a mess... since it's not going to be organized from the start and it would be many small factions all over the place instead of just 1 or 2 big rebelling force, they could be easily crushed. But that's not the case, the rebels not only are quite well organized from the very beginning, but they also have anti-tank and anti-air missiles. They were able to take control large cities. That kind of "rebel" is no way a people's rebelling. If you don't agree, you can try to start one and see how different it will turn out. Iran is not supplying "revolutionary guards". Revolutionary Guards are Iran's domestic military force. Sure Iran would support Syria government as they are allies, and Iran has every right to do business with a legit government. The NATO however, keeps supplying their mercenaries and repeatedly tell the mercenaries pretending to be Syria people calling for NATO "no-fly-zone" which is just the same as in Libya.
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point Vash. As you know in war the first victim is truth. Just a point I'd like to clarify is that I am not at all anti-Russian. I have had the privilege of having several Russian friends who have always been typically Russian: very hospitable, generous and courteous. My father fought in the Second World War to ensure that supplies for Russia could get through to the Caucasus. But in Syria it's quite clear to me that he Russians are victims of the regime's propaganda and continue to arm a dictator who shoots innocent civilians. Why does he shoot civilians? you asked. Very simple, because that population is demanding change which threatens the comfortable political and economic position of the ruling Baath party. Therefore such a challenge to their dynastic hold on power cannot be tolerated, and so they shoot and repress. Simple as that.
A dictator or not, he would not shoot the civilians just because they demand something (peacefully). It was obvious that someone was shooting at the troops, starting assassinations and bombing against the government, even started to take over cities and towns by force ( by attacking police station and killing everything), that caused the government to react with force too. Just think about it, a dictator could just ignore the "demand" of the people and do nothing. No point to shoot anyone until someone started shooting first. There is no evidence that Syrian government started shooting first. It's all propaganda.
This whole middle east situation is bound to explode, there's to much tension. Think about it. Israel VS Iran and pretty much everybody else Turkey VS Syria Possibly NATO Vs Syria It's not going to be good. Russia and China also have strategic interests in the area (Especially Russia in Syria)
@ Ernest, Correction. Iran isn't vs everyone. The way I see it, it's the U.S. + Israel and dragging entire NATO/EU into their side to against Iran. Nobody else is having much problem with Iran because Iran has never attacked anyone in the last 500 years. However I do see Israel is in the center of the conflict, or almost. Many of the so called "Arab spring" countries were Israel's old foes. Someone out there wants to take care of all of them and replace their governments with controllable puppets regimes. Other than Israel, it's oil. Libya, Iraq, Iran all have tons of oil. When CIA overthrew Iranian democratically elected president in 1953, a KING was installed there to control everything and gave most of the oil contracts to American oil companies. Islamic revolution overthrew the dictator Iranian King and took back what's theirs - oil. THAT put Iran on the enemy list of the U.S. ...not the hostage situation that every American believed in.
Vashstampede said What about the Sunni Islamic coutries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar then? One particularly bitter dispute between them and Iran is simply over the name of the Gulf, is it the Arabian Gulf or the Persian Gulf? As I'm sure you know, Sunnies consider Shiis to be a dangerous heresy of Islam, and the Saudies, as official guardians of the sacred sites of Islam like Mecca, are especially opposed to Shii Iran. And your claim that Iran hasn't attacked anyone in 500 years is a little weak when you look at the history of Hezbollah. Or would you say that Hezbollah's weapons appeared by magic from the pixies? Iran's leaders have repeatedly and systematically threatened to "wipe Israel off the map". What a wonderfully non-aggressive government, Vash! A true shining example of world peace and conciliation. This whole thread started with your indignation that a Russian plane had been forced to land over Turkey and then been permitted to continue. Isn't a direct attack on US territory (the American embassy in Teheran in February 1979) more serious? And the kidnapping of that nation's citizens for nearly 2 years? Remember an embassy anywhere in the world is territory of that country.
Now you brought it up. I see three "issues" here. 1. Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization. Iran supports them is no more than how the U.S. support(ed) various insurgents groups around the world. Iran doesn't pull the string on Hezbollah, they just sell them weapons. Talking about selling weapons, the U.S. sells 50% of the world's arms, the remaining market is mostly divided among Russia, UK, China. 2. "wipe Israel off the map". That is one of the biggest propaganda lies in human history. As so happened, it was a purposely mistranslation by the western mass media propaganda. The original speech meant " Israel needs a regime change". I can't believe there are still people buying into that kind of propaganda. It's just like "Russia invaded Georgia" all over again. One of these days, I hope those propaganda producers go to jails for trying to brainwash the general public with lies and crime against humanity. It is truly sad that so many people still believe in daily lies from mass media propaganda. Long time ago I had learned to read between lines and to figure out what's really going on by myself. 3. Attack on embassy. First, when I said Iran hadn't attacked anyone in 500 years, I meant they haven't invaded anyone in 500 years. That fact stays. As for the reason for those angry crowd to attack on embassy, I have explained that part. Why most Americans still believe that event is the beginning of all the mess with Iran??? CIA overthrew Iranian democratically elected president in 1953, then installed a KING, and then have the KING to give all the oil contracts to the American companies wasn't any act of aggression? The attack on embassy is a direct response of those earlier events, and 20 years of oppression by the puppet KING who was installed by CIA. If you want to talk about attack on embassy as aggression, how about the bombing of Chinese embassy by American missiles in Yugoslavia?
The bombing of the Chinese embassy on May 7 1999 was an accident in the context of the general NATO bombardment of Milosovich's regime which was responsible for repression in Yugoslavia. Milosovich was indicted by the UN International Tribunal for the following charges ... Genocide; complicity in genocide; deportation; murder; persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; inhumane acts/forcible transfer; extermination; imprisonment; torture; wilful killing; unlawful confinement; wilfully causing great suffering; unlawful deportation or transfer; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; cruel treatment; plunder of public or private property; attacks on civilians; destruction or wilful damage done to historic monuments and institutions dedicated to education or religion; unlawful attacks on civilian objects.The ICTY indictment reads that Milosevic was responsible for the forced deportation of 800,000 ethnic Albanians from Kosovo, and the murder of hundreds of Kosovo Albanians and hundreds of non-Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia. Not a bad collection, eh Vash? The 5 bombs that hit the Chinese embassy were intended for a military obective in the same street, namely Milosovich's Directorate for Procurement and Supply. In any war tragic mistakes happen. Did you know that in Gulf War One eight years earlier more British troops were killed by friendly fire than by Iraquis? We didn't go around making such a big fuss about it and criticising the guys who made the terrible mistake. In this case in Belgrade the planes were given the wrong coordinates. President Clinton apologised for the terrible mistake and quite rightly too. A bit different from the deliberate storming of the US embassy by an Iranian mob 20 years earlier, an action which was instigated by the new theocratic regime. No apology has ever, ever been issued there. I reiterate that Embassy territory is a sacrosanct territory belonging to the country that runs that embassy. There is absolutely no excuse for violating this fundamental rule of international diplomacy, whatever may have happened in the past between the two nations concerned. An attack on an Embassy is an attack on that country.
It was a lie about "mistake". The excuse used back then was "we used an old map". Yeah right, the map with Chinese embassy on it was sold everywhere on the street because it's been there for years. NATO general already admitted Chinese embassy was purposely hit for two reasons: 1. There was the possibility Chinese embassy was helping Yugoslavia government transmitting a radio signal. 2. There was the rumor about Chinese had acquired shot down F-117 parts and the parts were inside the embassy of the time. So the embassy building was hit on purpose, because Chinese lives are worthless in the eyes of NATO commanders. Genocide - In Yugoslavia civil war, ALL sides are responsible for war crimes and have their fair share of crime against humanity, not just the Serbs. NATO clearly took side and bombed only Serb targets for "peace". It wasn't about peace anyway. We all know it's NATO expansion and demonstrate its capability to strike anywhere it wants. You are still not talking about the fact how Iran was a victim for decades of American imperialism before some of the "mobs" finally blew up and took over embassy. "The longest hostage situation in human history" as many Americans claim, was NOT the cause nor the beginning. It's the American imperialism, CIA's overthrowing of foreign governments, installing of puppet regimes, desire to control resources around the global... The capture of the American hostages was just a response. Not that I agree with the method, but I see the reason quite clear.
NATO bombed the Serbs because Serbs are Orthodox Christian. There is a grand alliance between the Muslims and Catholics in the Balkans and the main aim is to drive out the Orthodox Christians. This is not new.... Even during the WW2, the alliance murdered close to 500,000 Serbs. Kosovo is Serb land. Albanian Muslims can go to Saudi Arabia.
Although I have never heard of that part - Catholics and Muslims allied against Serb Orthodox, I have heard quite a few times that Kosovo was Serbs' to begin with and Albanians were not native there. For whatever reason it was, NATO had no right to butt in and take side.
Outsiders don't know the historic significance of Kosovo. Kosovo is considered as the heartland of Serbian civilization. Almost all of the major monasteries of the Serbian Orthodox church and many of the palaces of the Karađorđević dynasty are located in Kosovo. Most importantly, it was in Kosovo Polje that the infamous Battle of Kosovo occurred. For Muslims and Serbs, the battle is very significant, as the Ottoman Turks defeated the Serbs during the battle, paving way for the Ottoman occupation of the entire Balkan region.
