Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

For Bill, whose deep and profound knowledge of Syria (Assad baddie, US goodie) prompted me to post this.

'Cynical' doesn't even begin to describe the self-serving rat-baggery of the US.
From Wikileaks.

''On August 31, 2013, US president Barack Obama announced that he intended to launch a military attack on Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack in that country that the US blamed on the Syrian government. Obama assured the US public that this would be a limited action solely intended to punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons; the goal of US military action would not be to overthrow the Assad government, nor to change the balance of forces in Syria's sectarian civil war.



A December 13, 2006 cable, "Influencing the SARG [Syrian government] in the End of 2006," indicates that, as far back as 2006 - five years before "Arab Spring" protests in Syria - destabilizing the Syrian government was a central motivation of US policy. The author of the cable was William Roebuck, at the time chargé d'affaires at the US embassy in Damascus. The cable outlines strategies for destabilizing the Syrian government. In his summary of the cable, Roebuck wrote:

We believe Bashar's weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising.
This cable suggests that the US goal in December 2006 was to undermine the Syrian government by any available means, and that what mattered was whether US action would help destabilize the government, not what other impacts the action might have. In public the US was in favor of economic reform, but in private the US saw conflict between economic reform and "entrenched, corrupt forces" as an "opportunity." In public, the US was opposed to "Islamist extremists" everywhere; but in private it saw the "potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists" as an "opportunity" that the US should take action to try to increase.

Roebuck lists Syria's relationship with Iran as a "vulnerability" that the US should try to "exploit." His suggested means of doing so are instructive:

Possible action:
PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE: There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. Though often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business.
Both the local Egyptian and Saudi missions here (as well as prominent Syrian Sunni religious leaders) are giving increasing attention to the matter and we should coordinate more closely with their governments on ways to better publicize and focus regional attention on the issue. [Emphasis added.]
Roebuck thus argued that the US should try to destabilize the Syrian government by coordinating more closely with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to fan sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia, including by the promotion of "exaggerated" fears of Shia proselytizing of Sunnis, and of concern about "the spread of Iranian influence" in Syria in the form of mosque construction and business activity.

By 2014, the sectarian Sunni-Shia character of the civil war in Syria was bemoaned in the United States as an unfortunate development. But in December 2006, the man heading the US embassy in Syria advocated in a cable to the secretary of state and the White House that the US government collaborate with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to promote sectarian conflict in Syria between Sunni and Shia as a means of destabilizing the Syrian government. At that time, no one in the US government could credibly have claimed innocence of the possible implications of such a policy. This cable was written at the height of the sectarian Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq, which the US military was unsuccessfully trying to contain. US public disgust with the sectarian civil war in Iraq unleashed by the US invasion had just cost Republicans control of Congress in the November 2006 election. The election result immediately precipitated the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense. No one working for the US government on foreign policy at the time could have been unaware of the implications of promoting Sunni-Shia sectarianism.

It was easy to predict then that, while a strategy of promoting sectarian conflict in Syria might indeed help undermine the Syrian government, it could also help destroy Syrian society. But this consideration does not appear in Roebuck's memo at all, as he recommends that the US government cooperate with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to promote sectarian tensions.

Note that, while Roebuck was serving in the George W. Bush administration, he was a career Foreign Service officer, a permanent senior member in good standing of the US government's foreign policy apparatus. He went on to serve in the US embassies in Iraq and Libya - in the latter as chargé d'affaires - in the Obama administration. There is no evidence that anyone in the US foreign policy apparatus found the views expressed by Roebuck in this cable particularly controversial; its publication did not cause scandal in US foreign policy circles.

So, while the sectarian character of the civil war in Syria is now publicly bemoaned in the West, it seems fair to say that in 2006 the US government foreign policy apparatus believed that promoting sectarianism in Syria was a good idea, which would foster "US interests" by destabilizing the Syrian government.

This view of US policy - happy to make common cause with Saudi Arabia in fostering Sunni-Shia sectarianism in Syria, and preoccupied with Syria's relationship with Iran above all else - is buttressed by a March 22, 2009 cable from the US embassy in Saudi Arabia, "Saudi Intelligence Chief Talks Regional Security with Brennan Delegation."2

This cable summarizes a March 15 meeting including then US counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan and US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Ford Fraker with Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, the head of Saudi Arabia's external intelligence agency. Ambassador Fraker's summary recounted:

7. (C) PERSIAN MEDDLING: Prince Muqrin described Iran as "all over the place now." The "Shiite crescent is becoming a full moon," encompassing Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait and
Yemen among Iran's targets. In the Kingdom, he said "we have problems in Medina and Eastern Province." When asked if he saw Iran's hand in last month's Medina Riots (reftels), he strongly affirmed his belief that they were "definitely" Iranian supported. (Comment: Muqrin's view was not necessarily supported by post's Saudi Shi'a shia sources.) Muqrin bluntly stated "Iran is becoming a pain in the ..." and he expressed hope the President "can get them straight, or straighten them out." [Emphasis added.]
Ambassador Fraker's comment that "Muqrin's view was not necessarily supported by post's Saudi Shi'a sources" was a severe understatement. Indeed, in a February 24, 2009 cable, "Saudi Shia Clash With Police In Medina,"3

Ambassador Fraker had reported in detail on the February 20 clashes between Saudi security forces and Saudi Shia pilgrims in Medina, without any mention of Iran. Fraker's February 24 cable primarily attributed the clashes to, first, Saudi police having denied the Saudi Shia pilgrims access to the Baqi'a cemetery opposite the Prophet's Mosque, and second, the Saudi Shia community's long-simmering anger over historical grievances.

This indicates that the US government knows perfectly well that the Saudi government blames Iran for things that the Iranian government has nothing to do with, and is unconcerned about this. For the US government's own internal information, the ambassador wanted to make clear that, as far as the US embassy knew, the Medina clashes had nothing to do with Iran. But as the 2006 cable makes clear, the US was happy to make common cause with Saudi Arabia in blaming Iran for things happening in Syria with which Iran had no connection. The next paragraph in the cable is also instructive:

8. (C) WEANING SYRIA FROM IRAN: Brennan asked Muqrin if he believed the Syrians were interested in improving relations with the United States.
"I can't say anything positive or negative," he replied, declining to give an opinion. Muqrin observed that the Syrians would not detach from Iran without "a supplement."
This suggests that, for the US government in March 2009, Syria's interest in "improving relations with the United States" was equivalent to its being "weaned" from Iran. Thus, the thing that the US really cared about in Syria was not, for example, the Syrian government's respect for human rights, but Syria's relationship with Iran.

Another theme that recurred in the 2006 cable focusing on Syria's "vulnerabilities" and how the US should try to exploit them was that the US should take actions to try to destabilize the Syrian government by provoking it to "overreact," both internally and externally. One of the "vulnerabilities" of the Syrian government listed by Roebuck that the US should try to exploit was its "enormous irritation" with former Syrian vice president Abdul Halim Khaddam, leader of the opposition-in-exile National Salvation Front. Roebuck wrote:

Vulnerability:
THE KHADDAM FACTOR: Khaddam knows where the regime skeletons are hidden, which provokes enormous irritation from Bashar, vastly disproportionate to any support Khaddam has within Syria. Bashar Asad personally, and his regime in general, follow every news item involving Khaddam with tremendous emotional interest. The regime reacts with self-defeating anger whenever another Arab country hosts Khaddam or allows him to make a public statement through any of its media outlets.
Roebuck proposed a means of exploiting this vulnerability:


Possible Action:
We should continue to encourage the Saudis and others to allow Khaddam access to their media outlets, providing him with venues for airing the SARG's dirty laundry.
We should anticipate an overreaction by the regime that will add to its isolation and alienation from its Arab neighbors.
Note that the goal of encouraging the Saudis and others to "allow Khaddam access to their media outlets" was not to promote democracy and human rights in Syria, but to provoke the Syrian government to do things that would "add to its isolation" from its Arab neighbors. Of course, if the Syrian government acted in ways that would "add to its isolation," then the US could cite such actions as evidence that the Syrian government was a rogue government, unable or unwilling to conform to international norms, threatening to US allies in the region, and therefore that the US government had to take some action in response. But now we know that such actions by the Syrian government would not have been unfortunate developments to which the US would be reluctantly forced to respond, but the explicit goal of US policy.

For example, in August 2007 - eight months after the above cable - Khaddam told the Saudi daily Al-Watan that reported remarks of Syrian vice president Faruq al-Sharaa criticizing Saudi Arabia were "part of the policy pursued by the ruling clique, which aims at severing Syrian links with the Arab world and tying it further to Iran's regional strategy," the Beirut Daily Star reported.4 The newspaper noted that the Syrian government was actually trying to "calm the spat," saying that statements attributed to Sharaa had been "distorted." In the context of Roebuck's cable, these developments make sense: it was the US and its ally Khaddam that were trying to inflame tensions between Syria and Saudi Arabia, not the Syrian government.

Whatever one thinks of Khaddam or the Syrian government, it is not surprising that the latter would have been provoked in 2006 by countries like Saudi Arabia giving Khaddam a media platform, given what Khaddam had used such platforms to say in the past. Note that there is no question that the Saudi government controls the country's media for a purpose like this, exactly as Roebuck implied - indeed, the Riyadh embassy cable about the Medina clashes between Saudi police and Shia pilgrims noted that the Saudi government had successfully pressured Saudi media to suppress reports of the clashes.

Here is what Khaddam told the Saudi-owned newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat about his goals in an interview in Paris in January 2006:

Q: What are you[r] current priorities? Do you want to reform the regime, reform it, or topple it?
A: This regime cannot be reformed so there is nothing left but to oust it.5
One imagines that if Iran had given a former Bahraini or Egyptian vice president a platform to say about the government of Bahrain or Egypt that "this regime cannot be reformed so there is nothing left but to oust it," the US government would not have responded well. This was eleven months before Roebuck's cable, and five years before the "Arab Spring" protests in Syria. We are told in the West that the current efforts to topple the Syrian government by force were a reaction to the Syrian government's repression of dissent in 2011, but now we know that "regime change" was the policy of the US and its allies five years earlier.

Indeed, another of Roebuck's proposed actions to exploit Syria's "vulnerabilities" carried the same message:

Possible Action:
ENCOURAGE RUMORS AND SIGNALS OF EXTERNAL PLOTTING:
The regime is intensely sensitive to rumors about coup-plotting and restlessness in the security services and military. Regional allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be encouraged to meet with figures like Khaddam and Rif'at Asad as a way of sending such signals, with appropriate leaking of the meetings afterwards. This again touches on this insular regime's paranoia and increases the possibility of a self-defeating over-reaction.
According to Roebuck, if Egypt and Saudi Arabia met with Khaddam and news of the meetings were "appropriately leaked," that would send a signal to the Syrian government that these countries were plotting against Syria, perhaps trying to organize a coup.


It is revealing that Roebuck described the regime as "paranoid" for having fears that appear to have been quite rational - fears based in significant measure on the actions of the United States and its allies. The most powerful government in the world and its allies in the region aspired to overthrow the Syrian government. The US has a long track record6 of trying to overthrow governments around the world, including in the region - and, as Roebuck's cable makes clear, far from trying to allay such fears, the US wanted to exacerbate them. In 2014, the US was arming insurgents who were trying to kill Syrian government officials. Was the Syrian government's fear of the US government irrational, or was it rational?

Failure to acknowledge that US adversaries' fears of the US are rational suggests a world-view in which US threats are normal, unremarkable, an inevitable part of the landscape, which only mentally unstable people would object to, their fears serving as proof of their irrationality. During the US-organized Contra war against Nicaragua in the 1980s, Alexander Cockburn recounted the view of a visiting US congressman toward Nicaragua: "Nicaraguans tell stories about these US fact-finders with a certain wry incredulity. One congressman listened to a commandante outlining the murderous rampages of the contras and then burst out, 'Suppose 5,000 contras cross your border. Suppose you are invaded by the entire Honduran army, why should you worry. Are you that insecure?'"7

Listing resistance to economic reforms as a "vulnerability," Roebuck wrote

Vulnerability:
REFORM FORCES VERSUS BAATHISTS - OTHER CORRUPT ELITES:
Bashar keeps unveiling a steady stream of initiatives on economic reform and it is certainly possible he believes this issue is his legacy to Syria. While limited and ineffectual, these steps have brought back Syrian expats to invest and have created at least the illusion of increasing openness. Finding ways to publicly call into question Bashar's reform efforts - pointing, for example to the use of reform to disguise cronyism - would embarrass Bashar and undercut these efforts to shore up his legitimacy. [Emphasis added.]
Presumably, a key goal of economic reforms would have been to "[bring] back Syrian expats to invest," so if they had that effect, then they were not ineffectual. This makes clear what Roebuck was and was not interested in. He was not interested in Syrian economic reforms succeeding in facilitating private investment, but in their failure. Even if they had some success, he wanted to present them as a failure and "undercut these efforts to shore up his legitimacy."

The notion of "legitimacy" is a key one in US foreign policy toward adversary governments in countries that the US does not fear militarily (for example, because they have nuclear weapons). In the context of US foreign policy, the term "legitimacy" is a term of art that has a specific meaning. The usual notion of government "legitimacy" in international law and diplomacy, which the US applies to its allies without question, has nothing to do with whether we like the policies of the government in question or consider them just. Either you are the recognized government of the country, holding its seat at the United Nations, or you are not. Hardly anyone in Washington would suggest that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, or Israel are not "legitimate" because they were not elected by all of their subjects or because they engage in gross violations of human rights. Nor would many in Washington suggest that the governments of Russia or China are not "legitimate," however one might dislike some of their policies, their lack of democracy, or their violations of human rights. These countries have nuclear weapons and a permanent seat and veto on the UN Security Council, so challenging their legitimacy could have dangerous consequences. The US may complain about their policies, but there is no chance that it will challenge their "legitimacy."

Countries like Syria, Iraq before the 2003 US invasion, and Libya before the 2011 US-NATO military campaign to over-throw Qaddafi, on the other hand, belong to a different category. If the US government thinks that their governments can be overthrown, then it may declare them to be "illegitimate." A US declaration that a government is "illegitimate" means that the United States is likely to try to overthrow it.

Roebuck underscored his point as follows:

DISCOURAGE FDI, ESPECIALLY FROM THE GULF: Syria has enjoyed a considerable uptick in foreign direct investment (FDI) in the last two years that appears to be picking up steam. The most important new FDI is undoubtedly from the Gulf.
Again, the increase in investment would seem to suggest that economic reforms were working to encourage investment. But Roebuck saw this as bad. If the most important FDI was from the Gulf, that suggested that, contrary to the US and Khaddam's claims that Syria was trying to have bad relations with the Gulf countries, it was succeeding in projecting an image of a country that was trying to get along. But in Roebuck's view, this was not a good thing; this was a bad thing, which the US should try to counteract.

Roebuck spoke glowingly of violent protests against the Syrian government:

Vulnerability:
THE KURDS: The most organized and daring
political opposition and civil society groups are among the ethnic minority Kurds, concentrated in Syria's northeast, as well as in communities in Damascus and Aleppo. This group has been willing to protest violently in its home territory when others would dare not. [Emphasis added.]
The word "daring" in English usually connotes exemplary courage. US newspapers, for example, do not generally describe the Palestinian use of violence against the Israeli occupation as "daring," because, while using violence in this instance obviously requires courage, it is not seen in the US as exemplary. This shows how US diplomats like Roebuck see the world: if you are protesting governments that are US allies, like Bahrain, Egypt, or Israel, then your protests should be nonviolent. But if you are protesting a government that the US would like to overthrow, then the use of violence demonstrates "daring." Roebuck suggested a means of taking advantage of this "vulnerability":

Possible Action:
HIGHLIGHT KURDISH COMPLAINTS: Highlighting Kurdish complaints in public statements, including publicizing human rights abuses will exacerbate regime's concerns about the Kurdish population. There is no pretense here that the goal of this action would be to encourage greater respect by the Syrian government for the human rights of Kurds - the goal would be to destabilize the Syrian government. Roebuck also made clear his attitude toward terrorism in Syria:
Vulnerability:
Extremist elements increasingly use Syria as
a base, while the SARG has taken some actions against groups stating links to Al-Qaeda. With the killing of the al-Qaida [sic] leader on the border with Lebanon in early December and the increasing terrorist attacks inside Syria culminating in the September 12 attack against the US embassy, the SARG's policies in Iraq and support for terrorists elsewhere as well can be seen to be coming home to roost.
Possible Actions:
Publicize presence of transiting (or externally focused) extremist groups in Syria, not limited to mention of Hamas and PIJ. Publicize Syrian efforts against extremist groups in a way that suggests weakness, signs of instability, and uncontrolled blowback. The SARG's argument (usually used after terror attacks in Syria) that it too is a victim of terrorism should be used against it to give greater prominence to increasing signs of instability within Syria. [Emphasis added.]
Note that, in private correspondence, Roebuck has no problem acknowledging that Syria is the victim of terrorism and that the Syrian government is trying to take action against terrorists. But if Syria is the victim of terrorism and is trying to do something about it, according to the view that Roebuck wants the US to present to the world, that is evidence that Syria is weak and unstable and is suffering "uncontrolled blowback" as its support for terrorists elsewhere "comes home to roost."

Imagine if a diplomat from a country perceived to be a US adversary suggested that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and US efforts to prevent such attacks in the future, were evidence that the US is weak and unstable, suffering from "uncontrolled blowback" as past US support for terrorists elsewhere "came home to roost." How would this be perceived in the United States?

It is not hard to speculate. In May 2007, when Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul suggested that "blowback" from US foreign policy had helped cause the September 11 attacks,8 Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani denounced him as a conspiracy theorist.9 When in 2010, in a speech at the United Nations, the president of Iran noted the then widespread minority belief that the US government was behind the September 11 attacks, the US led a walkout and denounced the speech.10 So it seems reasonable to conclude that, if the US put forward the view that terrorism in Syria were Syria's own fault, the Syrian government would be likely to perceive that as a very hostile act.

This cable shows that, in December 2006, the top US diplomat in Syria believed that the goal of US policy in Syria should be to destabilize the Syrian government by any means available; that the US should work to increase Sunni-Shia sectarianism in Syria, including by aiding the dissemination of false fears about Shia proselytizing and stoking resentment about Iranian business activity and mosque construction; that the US should press Arab allies to give access in the media they control to a former Syrian official calling for the ouster of the Syrian government; that the US should try to strain relations between the Syrian government and other Arab governments, and then blame Syria for the strain; that the US should seek to stoke Syrian government fears of coup plots in order to provoke the Syrian government to overreact; that if the Syrian government reacted to external provocations, it proved that the regime was paranoid; that the US should work to undermine Syrian economic reforms and discourage foreign investment; that the US should seek to foster the belief that the Syrian government was not legitimate; that violent protests in Syria were praiseworthy and exemplary; that if Syria is the victim of terrorism and tries to do something about it, the US should exploit that to say that the Syrian government is weak and unstable, and is experiencing blowback for its foreign policy..."
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

Post by Dalek Prime »

Neither Syria nor the rest of the mid-east is willing to take in Palestinians, but they sure as heck are willing to beat Israel over the head to do it. So, fuck them. They get what they deserve.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Dalek Prime wrote:Neither Syria nor the rest of the mid-east is willing to take in Palestinians, but they sure as heck are willing to beat Israel over the head to do it. So, fuck them. They get what they deserve.
What does that have to do with anything? And how are they 'beating them over the head'? Who is 'they' as in 'get what 'they' deserve'? Syrian children? Do you really think there is an influx of regugees INTO Syria? Why should Syria be any more obliged to take in 'Palestinians' than anywhere else??
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
Impenitent
Posts: 4332
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

Post by Impenitent »

Dalek Prime wrote:Neither Syria nor the rest of the mid-east is willing to take in Palestinians, but they sure as heck are willing to beat Israel over the head to do it. So, fuck them. They get what they deserve.
true

-Imp
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Impenitent wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:Neither Syria nor the rest of the mid-east is willing to take in Palestinians, but they sure as heck are willing to beat Israel over the head to do it. So, fuck them. They get what they deserve.
true

-Imp
And fuck you too.
User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.




..................................................
Philosophy children...remember, philosophy.





.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Funny no one bothered to comment on it months ago, when I posted it. Then when they do it's some retarded warmongering filth.
Impenitent
Posts: 4332
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

Post by Impenitent »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Impenitent wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:Neither Syria nor the rest of the mid-east is willing to take in Palestinians, but they sure as heck are willing to beat Israel over the head to do it. So, fuck them. They get what they deserve.
true

-Imp
And fuck you too.
thank you

-Imp
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

Post by Dalek Prime »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:Neither Syria nor the rest of the mid-east is willing to take in Palestinians, but they sure as heck are willing to beat Israel over the head to do it. So, fuck them. They get what they deserve.
What does that have to do with anything? And how are they 'beating them over the head'? Who is 'they' as in 'get what 'they' deserve'? Syrian children? Do you really think there is an influx of regugees INTO Syria? Why should Syria be any more obliged to take in 'Palestinians' than anywhere else??
Because they've always been a destabilizing force in the middle east, practically ruined Lebanon in infiltrating it, and causing a war across that border that destroyed Beirut. The best arms invaded Israel during Yom Kippur to destroy the state, and should have been thoroughly trounced for doing so. They are shit. Don't give me the poor children victim crap. They want Israel and it's children destroyed, and are using Palestinians as a cause celeb. They could just as easily have given Palestinians a home, but none of them want them either. So go blow it.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Dalek Prime wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:Neither Syria nor the rest of the mid-east is willing to take in Palestinians, but they sure as heck are willing to beat Israel over the head to do it. So, fuck them. They get what they deserve.
What does that have to do with anything? And how are they 'beating them over the head'? Who is 'they' as in 'get what 'they' deserve'? Syrian children? Do you really think there is an influx of regugees INTO Syria? Why should Syria be any more obliged to take in 'Palestinians' than anywhere else??
Because they've always been a destabilizing force in the middle east, practically ruined Lebanon in infiltrating it, and causing a war across that border that destroyed Beirut. The best arms invaded Israel during Yom Kippur to destroy the state, and should have been thoroughly trounced for doing so. They are shit. Don't give me the poor children victim crap. They want Israel and it's children destroyed, and are using Palestinians as a cause celeb. They could just as easily have given Palestinians a home, but none of them want them either. So go blow it.
You are so full of shit (unless 'they' is the US). Take your war-loving bullshit and fuck off. You only dug this up to pick a fight. You don't even make any sense.
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

Post by Dalek Prime »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: What does that have to do with anything? And how are they 'beating them over the head'? Who is 'they' as in 'get what 'they' deserve'? Syrian children? Do you really think there is an influx of regugees INTO Syria? Why should Syria be any more obliged to take in 'Palestinians' than anywhere else??
Because they've always been a destabilizing force in the middle east, practically ruined Lebanon in infiltrating it, and causing a war across that border that destroyed Beirut. The best arms invaded Israel during Yom Kippur to destroy the state, and should have been thoroughly trounced for doing so. They are shit. Don't give me the poor children victim crap. They want Israel and it's children destroyed, and are using Palestinians as a cause celeb. They could just as easily have given Palestinians a home, but none of them want them either. So go blow it.
You are so full of shit (unless 'they' is the US). Take your war-loving bullshit and fuck off. You only dug this up to pick a fight. You don't even make any sense.
You don't eveen have the guts to state your background. Why is that? What's the big secret? So shut your hole. Every asshole in the mideast wants Israel wiped off the map. And you wonder why they are defensive, or even offensive?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Dalek Prime wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote: Because they've always been a destabilizing force in the middle east, practically ruined Lebanon in infiltrating it, and causing a war across that border that destroyed Beirut. The best arms invaded Israel during Yom Kippur to destroy the state, and should have been thoroughly trounced for doing so. They are shit. Don't give me the poor children victim crap. They want Israel and it's children destroyed, and are using Palestinians as a cause celeb. They could just as easily have given Palestinians a home, but none of them want them either. So go blow it.
You are so full of shit (unless 'they' is the US). Take your war-loving bullshit and fuck off. You only dug this up to pick a fight. You don't even make any sense.
You dontbeven have the guts to state your background. Shut your hole. Every as hole in the mideast wants Israel wiped off the map. And you wonder why they are defensive, or even offensive?
Still don't make sense. And you are harping back to 1973? Ok, so your logic is that the US has a right to destroy every ME country just because they don't like Israel. Stunning logic. Never mind that we are all hurtling towards WW111, which fucks things up for every country on the planet. Fuck your petty politics.
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

Post by Dalek Prime »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: You are so full of shit (unless 'they' is the US). Take your war-loving bullshit and fuck off. You only dug this up to pick a fight. You don't even make any sense.
You dontbeven have the guts to state your background. Shut your hole. Every as hole in the mideast wants Israel wiped off the map. And you wonder why they are defensive, or even offensive?
Still don't make sense. And you are harping back to 1973? Ok, so your logic is that the US has a right to destroy every ME country just because they don't like Israel. Stunning logic. Never mind that we are all hurtling towards WW111, which fucks things up for every country on the planet. Fuck your petty politics.
Who cares about war. The human race is a pile of contradictory, worthless shit anyways. We are just at odds on which pile is worth protecting, and which is worth blaming.
Impenitent
Posts: 4332
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

Post by Impenitent »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Still don't make sense. And you are harping back to 1973? Ok, so your logic is that the US has a right to destroy every ME country just because they don't like Israel. Stunning logic. Never mind that we are all hurtling towards WW111, which fucks things up for every country on the planet. Fuck your petty politics.
welcome to humanity...

pick up a gun

-Imp
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Syria's 'crime' was being independent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Dalek Prime wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote: You dontbeven have the guts to state your background. Shut your hole. Every as hole in the mideast wants Israel wiped off the map. And you wonder why they are defensive, or even offensive?
Still don't make sense. And you are harping back to 1973? Ok, so your logic is that the US has a right to destroy every ME country just because they don't like Israel. Stunning logic. Never mind that we are all hurtling towards WW111, which fucks things up for every country on the planet. Fuck your petty politics.
Who cares about war. The human race is a pile of contradictory, worthless shit anyways. We are just at odds on which pile is worth protecting, and which is worth blaming.
Nice attitude. You might think differently if your country was under attack. And I would say the same thing if Israel was being invaded. You can bet the US would do it if it suited it, and come up with some fabricated reason to do it. The point of the post was to show that Wikileaks proved that the US concocted a bullshit pretext to attack Syria.
Post Reply