24 COMMENTS

  1. The lead to my new Syria roundup is that Assad forces at Tabqa airbase MAY be in revolt.

    Two copters defected to Turkey and bombed an arms warehouse before leaving. There are have been some reports of possible fighting among regime soldiers at the base. What makes the latter possible is that–unlike bases near Damascus–defenders can’t move and hide elsewhere because the base is surrounded.

    Also, has the regime given up on Aleppo? I’ve seen two reports now that it has been withdrawing its most trusted and reliable officers by helicopter. I’d imagine some Hezbollah would be among those being pulled out.

    http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/19923

    • seems the rebels are entering Idlib city

      Bilad Al Shaam

      ALLAHUUUUU AKBAR ALLAHUU AKBARR ALLAHU AKBAR!! URGENNNTTTTT IDLIB- Violent clashes Mujahideen fought on the western entrance to the city and the terrible state of fear and panic between shabeeha after mujahideen battalions targeting several assadi shabiha sites at the western entrance of the city and are still sounds of mortar shelling and machine guns in that region.

      • No wonder the trapped shabiha panic. Their raison d’ete is and always has been terrorism, ethnic cleansing, intimidation and war crimes.
        The atrocity forces find themselves cornered by rebel elements least likely to accept surrender most likely to try war criminals and carry out subsequent verdicts in short order.

        Among mass murderers by definition are any enemy forces known to have engaged in shelling civilian neighborhoods or bombing such neighborhoods via copters and aircraft.

  2. Who would’ve thought that a French socialist government had more courage than Britain? At least somebody in Europe still has the courage of their convictions to stand against tyranny when it is necessary instead of giving them a green light to continue the slaughter at will with absolutely no fear of repercussions.

  3. Does “Hands off Syria!” apply only to the US? Because I don’t see those people protesting Iran and Russia. When the US does something it’s “imperialist”, but when others do something apparently the same people think they are doing it fro the greater good. I think there is enough hypocrisy on Syria for everyone.

    • I’m sooo glad we have the US that has a different attitude than a lot of our European counterparts, including my own government and a fair share of my compatriots!

      Keep going!

      • Who is ‘we’, Daniel? Inspite the fact that a vast majority of Europeans do not fancy rushing to another war, before having conclusive evidence, who is behind the attacks.

        • In fact, all polls I have seen out of the US indicate that most americans feel the same as most europeans about possible strikes on syria.
          And most are likewise not as happy as Mr. Doerig about their president refusing to seek congressional authorization.
          ……………………..
          And as a reminder from Mr. Obama during his presidential campaign:
          “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” candidate Obama told The Boston Globe in late 2007. He added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.”

          “It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action,” Obama continued.

          • Opinion polls have shown that about 50 percent of Americans would oppose intervention while 42 percent would support it. There is also a significant caveat to the polls that most are ignoring. If the strikes are limited to cruise missiles over a short time period then support for a strike among Americans goes up considerably. Support will also go up if Obama releases solid evidence of a chemical weapons attack. We are not Europe.

          • theodor2 – of course the Americans are against another Iraqi style invasion.

            However a limited no-fly zone or a strike to punish is something a good majority want.

            Majority of Americans want to arm the rebels.

        • Hey William I’m a American and was disappointed by the British parliment decision but at the same time I witnessed a true democracy in action for the whole world to see. Don’t be ashamed be proud.
          Cheers cousin
          Bill

    • So he admits that Iran is protecting a government who slaughters and gasses their own people and he bashes the US? That figures. What is his real agenda? Is he there to report or lead an anti-American revolution?

    • This is unsubstantiated conjecture and just speculation.

      Occam’s Razor says:

      Fact is that Assad gassed 1,500 people and maimed another 5,000.

      This is a war crime. A war criminal should be defending his life in a court. The US has plenty of authority to carry this out. France and Germany are behind the US, and so are 25 million Syrians who wish self-determination and independence from oligarchs..

  4. “[..] There has to be a strategic motivation behind the moral one, and it demands perseverance.

    There are plenty of possible strategic considerations. One is that of challenging Russia and Iran, both of which are pursuing the cold calculation of saving Assad to increase their own influence in the region. For the Obama administration, another motivation is that of demonstrating America’s weight in the region following years of retreat. Then there is the consideration of keeping Israel from launching its own, ill-considered attack. Thus, the Assad regime must go — and the Iranian/Russian bridgehead along with it. This, of course, would merely be the first war. After that, a second one would have to be fought against al-Qaida and the Al-Nusra Front to prevent the country from becoming a source of Islamist terror.

    Following this logic shows that there is no such thing as a short and cheap war…. Moral imperative versus interests and ability: the gas attacks change little in this conundrum. Doing nothing is also not a solution. But whatever is done should be well considered. Entering a war is always easier than winning it.”

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-pundits-weigh-pros-and-cons-of-syria-intervention-a-918849.html

    • Sending a few cruise missiles into bases surrounded by rebels is not “entering into a war”. It is “saving lives by removing Assad”.

      Rebels should surround a base such as the Brick factory, and then call in US cruise missile or air strikes. That is exactly what happened in Libya, and in retrospect was a terrific strategy.

      • It depends on what they do. I think Obama has to launch some form of strike because failure to do so would cause too much damage to the credibility of the office of President. Still with that said it should be a very limited strike and they should seek to avoid inflicting casualities at all costs. Boots on the ground or establishing a no fly zone are out of the question. The time period of the strikes should also be very brief. There should be no action that could be considered an attempt at regime change or an attempt to tip the balance towards one side or the other.

        The current situation in Syria is not the worst thing for our interests. Four of our primary enemies are fighting each other and burning resources. They can’t allow Assad to win, but if he falls too soon then al qaeda linked militants could fill the vacuum because the FSA is not prepared to take over and the jihadists are better organized.

        I understand that Israelis are a little nervous. If they try to hit Israel in retaliation for our actions we should give Israel full backing to retaliate and whatever assistance they require. Personally I think they’d be idiots to attack Israel when it would be easy for Israel to tip the balance against Assad if they go too far. Iran and hezbollah have their hands tied because if they make a mistake countries could easily retaliate against them in Syria where they are vulnerable. Now they are the ones in a quagmire and their options are very limited and filled with danger.

      • There is also one other thing that people overlook. Obama is not Bush. The latter was determined to go to war with Iraq while Obama has done just about everything possible not to be dragged into Syria. That is why I believe them on the chemical attacks. Obama has been deeply reluctant to get too involved in Syria so when he says that a horrific chemical attack was carried out by the regime he isn’t just using that as an excuse and he wouldn’t have went public if he wasn’t sure. If it goes to a vote in congress it will pass.

Leave a Comment