Canada "ready to go to war against syria" press reports...

GostHacked · January 4, 2013

So, let's cut the bullshit here, that the U.S. Government is supporting a populist uprising in Syria! It's really about the U.S., Israel, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia & the Gulf States, engaged in a religious, sectarian war against Iranian allies, with the ultimate aim being to take out Iran some time later this year....possibly. And, the deal with the devil, being made by the Americans again, is to support all of the groups on their terrorist watch lists in common cause against Iran. They may have different interests, but for now, they all have the same objective.

Agreed. Good post.

DogOnPorch · January 4, 2013

Agreed. Good post.

Is that so? I think we're relying a tad too much on reporters nowhere near the actual battlefield. Also, I suspect there isn't an Islamic terrorist group on Earth that would go against a fellow Muslim over the evil Zionists. It's definitely a scenario...but is it REALLY what is happening? Did America actually inflame the Arab Spring in Syria in order to launch a proxy war against Iran? Remember...no more Rove and his band o' merry neocons to blame.

Signals.Cpl · January 4, 2013

I think there are large stores of Russian weapons all across Syria if one is willing to take them. But, let's invent a crazy story worthy of Infowarz to liven up the plot a bit...

Nobody has to invent a thing, you hold WMDs crossing the border in to Syria at the middle of the night as truth without much facts to support it, you see it as completely believable yet a few thousand rifles being tossed in to the conflict seems out there as unbelievable James Bond type of stuff.

Russia may have had thrown thousands if not millions of rifles in to Syria but there is not guarantee that the Rebels had access to those weapons from the beginning, you can make any argument you want but if the Syrian government had a tight grip on the weapons in question the weapons the Rebels had must have come from some other source...

DogOnPorch · January 4, 2013

Perhaps Derek supplied the rebel alliance with Russian weapons. Derek! Explain yourself...

Signals.Cpl · January 4, 2013

Perhaps Derek supplied the rebel alliance with Russian weapons. Derek! Explain yourself...

Running out of arguments are we?

DogOnPorch · January 4, 2013

Running out of arguments are we?

Oh, like you're God Emperor. Nobody knows. But one thing I do know is that since 1966 or so, Syria has been a proxy of first the USSR and then Russia. It was Russia that taught Syria the know-how to build chemical weapons. It was the Russians supplying all the weapons. But, go ahead with your Bulgarian NATO AK-47 connection. It's by far the most likely way the Syrians got their Russian weapons.

Signals.Cpl · January 4, 2013

Oh, like you're God Emperor. Nobody knows. But one thing I do know is that since 1966 or so, Syria has been a proxy of first the USSR and then Russia. It was Russia that taught Syria the know-how to build chemical weapons. It was the Russians supplying all the weapons. But, go ahead with your Bulgarian NATO AK-47 connection. It's by far the most likely way the Syrians got their Russian weapons.

And why would the syrian government arm and equip the rebels? You don't know what you are talking about, since your initial argument was that no NATO weapons means no NATO interference yet when it was pointed out that NATO members have substantial arsenal of Soviet era weapons thus making your argument moot you run out of arguments and start spewing more BS around...

It could be that every Syrian has a rifle and ammunition at home, or it could be that someone supplied weapons to the rebels to get them going in the right direction. You have a hard time believing that NATO could have supplied weapons to Syria because it does not fit your world view, yet you have no problem that Saddam moved his entire arsenal of WMDs in to Syria even though there is absolutely no proof of that ever taking place... I wonder why would Saddam send away his WMDs if he had them? Why not use them knowing full well that he is going to be defeated one way or another? Explain to me why a dictator who has shown complete disregard for human lives decided to donate the only weapons that might have made some sort of a difference?

Someone somewhere needed to light the fire, and in this case the fire was weapons, no initial supply of weapons == no revolt as one would assume that the government and military would have a monopoly on all of the heavy weapons. You can kick up all the dust you want, but at the end of the day arming Syrians with a few hundred or a few thousand rifles sure makes more sense and is a tad more realistic then a dictator who sends away his only chance to actually hurt the nations arrayed against him.

DogOnPorch · January 4, 2013

And why would the syrian government arm and equip the rebels? You don't know what you are talking about, since your initial argument was that no NATO weapons means no NATO interference yet when it was pointed out that NATO members have substantial arsenal of Soviet era weapons thus making your argument moot you run out of arguments and start spewing more BS around...

There are these things called armories where weapons are stored. They are subject to looting in the same way as the local Wamart during a riot.

It could be that every Syrian has a rifle and ammunition at home, or it could be that someone supplied weapons to the rebels to get them going in the right direction. You have a hard time believing that NATO could have supplied weapons to Syria because it does not fit your world view, yet you have no problem that Saddam moved his entire arsenal of WMDs in to Syria even though there is absolutely no proof of that ever taking place... I wonder why would Saddam send away his WMDs if he had them? Why not use them knowing full well that he is going to be defeated one way or another? Explain to me why a dictator who has shown complete disregard for human lives decided to donate the only weapons that might have made some sort of a difference?

You are aware that Syria was, indeed, a Warsaw Pact proxy during the Cold War...I assume. But, perhaps I'm assuming too much.

Someone somewhere needed to light the fire, and in this case the fire was weapons, no initial supply of weapons == no revolt as one would assume that the government and military would have a monopoly on all of the heavy weapons. You can kick up all the dust you want, but at the end of the day arming Syrians with a few hundred or a few thousand rifles sure makes more sense and is a tad more realistic then a dictator who sends away his only chance to actually hurt the nations arrayed against him.

As mentioned, you're free to believe in your fantastical version where all these Russian weapons we're seeing in photos were supplied via old NATO stocks. Of course, that would go against the history of Russian influence in the area. Did NATO also arm Syria with Russian weapons before...say...the Yom Kippur War?

Syrian T-62 (supplied by NATO, apparently), heading towards the Golan circa October, 1973.

Israeli soldier finds a NATO supplied AK-47 used by Egyptian forces during the 6 Day War.

Arab NATO supplied MiG-17 damaged during the 6 Day War.

Edited January 4, 2013 by DogOnPorch

Signals.Cpl · January 4, 2013

There are these things called armories where weapons are stored. They are subject to looting in the same way as the local Wamart during a riot.

And I assume you would understand that in such a situation those are the first things to protect and/or consolidate to secure locations hard to loot a base when there are a few thousand heavily armed soldiers protecting it while looting awl mart and its 60 year old security guard doesn't seem like an equivalent task.

You are aware that Syria was, indeed, a Warsaw Pact proxy during the Cold War...I assume. But, perhaps I'm assuming too much.

And what does their relationships from 20 some years ago have to do with the situation now? I realize that they were armed to the teeth by the soviet union but your idiotic argument first that NATO had no access to those weapons thus couldn't be them, then that it was too James Bond type of thing seems to be born out of desperation to defend a position that is indefensible.

As mentioned, you're free to believe in your fantastical version where all these Russian weapons we're seeing in photos were supplied via old NATO stocks. Of course, that would go against the history of Russian influence in the area. Did NATO also arm Syria with Russian weapons before...say...the Yom Kippur War?

Syrian T-62 (supplied by NATO, apparently), heading towards the Golan circa October, 1973.

So with you its either all or nothing at all? It couldn't be that NATO threw a few hundred rifles and MGs in to the mix it was either NATO supplying Syria with all their weapons or none at all...

Still no reply as to why Saddam would toss aside his WMDs... I realize you like to avoid the hard questions. No WMDs in Iraq and you jump to the conclusion that he tossed them over the border to Syria, but why Syria why not Iran? After all he did donate a good part of his airforce to the Iranian government in the gulf war... right?

DogOnPorch · January 4, 2013

You're the apparent God Emperor. I just wait for your words from upon high as to who is doing what to whom. BTW...thanks for clearing up that little Cold War issue. Here I thought Russia was the antagonist during those years when it was NATO vs NATO all along.

Signals.Cpl · January 4, 2013

You're the apparent God Emperor.

Are you drunk?

I just wait for your words from upon high as to who is doing what to whom. BTW...thanks for clearing up that little Cold War issue. Here I thought Russia was the antagonist during those years when it was NATO vs NATO all along.

Finally an admission of being wrong... you ran out of arguments that made an sense out comes the humour... and no the Soviet Union was not the antagonist through the cold war, that was a shared role with the US.

I guess you really don't like the hard questions, when you run out of the pretty pictures to show us and can't come up with any argument you resort to a lame attempt at "comedy"... don't quit your day job kid... you aint gone make it in comedy.

DogOnPorch · January 4, 2013

Are you drunk?

Finally an admission of being wrong... you ran out of arguments that made an sense out comes the humour... and no the Soviet Union was not the antagonist through the cold war, that was a shared role with the US.

I guess you really don't like the hard questions, when you run out of the pretty pictures to show us and can't come up with any argument you resort to a lame attempt at "comedy"... don't quit your day job kid... you aint gone make it in comedy.

Tsk tsk...taking it personally, are we? Face it, the Soviet Union and then Russia supplied Syria with weapons. Not NATO. Ironically, many of those former Soviet weapons now find practical use in the IDF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/T-55_Operators_and_variants#Israel

WIP · January 4, 2013

Is that so? I think we're relying a tad too much on reporters nowhere near the actual battlefield. Also, I suspect there isn't an Islamic terrorist group on Earth that would go against a fellow Muslim over the evil Zionists. It's definitely a scenario...but is it REALLY what is happening?

Of all your dumb, uninformed comments, it seems like you're raising the bar even higher, as you go out on a limb to always be onside with whatever the Pentagon strategy is at the time. Let's take a look at the mess this attempt to micromanage regime change in Syria is turning out to be:

Nearly 1 in 10 Syrian Rebels Are Now Terrorists In The Eyes Of The US

But challenges remain since U.S.-made weapons have gone to hardline jihadists who have turned out to be the opposition's most organized and best fighters in the 21-month civil war.

The al-Nusra front has been leading rebel attacks from the front lines, including the recent capture of the only significant government facility remaining west of Aleppo.

While some Syrian rebels fear the group’s growing power, others work closely with it and admire it — or, at least, its military achievements — and are loath to end their cooperation.

Leaders of the Free Syrian Army, the loose-knit rebel umbrella group that the United States seeks to bolster, expressed exasperation that the United States, which has refused to provide weapons throughout the conflict that has killed more than 40,000 people, is now opposing a group they see as a vital ally.

The Nusra Front “defends civilians in Syria, whereas America didn’t do anything,” said Mosaab Abu Qatada, a rebel spokesman. “They stand by and watch; they look at the blood and the crimes and brag. Then they say that Nusra Front are terrorists."

He added, “America just wants a pretext to intervene in Syrian affairs after the revolution.”

The Nusra Front’s appeals to Syrian fighters seem to be working. At a recent meeting in Damascus, Abu Hussein al-Afghani, a veteran of insurgencies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, addressed frustrated young rebels. They lacked money, weapons and training, so they listened attentively.

He told them he was a leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, now working with a Qaeda branch in Syria, and by joining him, they could make their mark. One fighter recalled his resonant question: “Who is hearing your voice today?”

On Friday, demonstrators in several Syrian cities raised banners with slogans like, “No to American intervention, for we are all Jebhat al-Nusra,” referring to the group’s full name, Ansar al-Jebhat al-Nusra li-Ahl al-Sham, or Supporters of the Front for Victory of the People of Syria. One rebel battalion, the Ahrar, or Free Men, asked on its Facebook page why the United States did not blacklist Mr. Assad’s “terrorist” militias.

Another jihadist faction, the Sahaba Army in the Levant, even congratulated the group on the “great honor” of being deemed terrorists by the United States.

Even antigovernment activists who are wary of the group — some deride it as “the Taliban” — said the blacklisting would be ineffective and worsen strife within the uprising. To isolate the group, they say, the United States should support mainstream rebel military councils and Syrian civil society, like the committees that have sprung up to run rebel-held villages.

The Nusra Front is far from the only fighting group that embraces a strict interpretation of Islam. Many battalions have adopted religious slogans, dress and practices, in what some rebels and activists call a pragmatic shift to curry favor with Islamist donors in Persian Gulf countries. One activist said he had a fighter friend with a fondness for Johnnie Walker Black who is now sporting a beard to fit in.

The group gained prominence with suicide bombings in Damascus and Aleppo in early 2012 that targeted government buildings but caused heavy civilian casualties. It was the first Syrian insurgent organization to claim responsibility for suicide and car bomb attacks that killed civilians.

Many of its members — Syrians, Iraqis and a few from other countries —fought in Iraq, where the Syrian government helped funnel jihadis to battle the American occupation.

In Iraq’s Diyala Province, a former member of Al Qaeda in Iraq said that a leader and many members of the group were fighting in Syria under the Nusra Front’s banner. An Iraqi security official there said they travel through Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey to Syria.

“They are well trained mentally and militarily,” Major Issawi, the official in Anbar, said. “They are so excited about the fighting in Syria. They see Syria as a dream coming true.”

Syrian fighters also have Iraq experience. Abu Hussein, a commander of the Tawhid and Jihad brigade, which is not slated for American blacklisting and has taken a leading role in many battles, said he fought with Al Qaeda in Iraq for six years.

“I decided to return to Syria because our people need me,” he said, adding that his group was attracting secular young men because it could provide ammunition, training and medical care that non-jihadist groups could not.

Syrian ‘Rebel’ Group Threatens the US with Bloodshed

Ilana Freedman

In its latest move, Al-Nusra Front has declared a no-fly-zone over the northern city of Aleppo, Syria’s largest city and once-thriving commercial center on the Mediterranean. Now much of it is in ruins. Not unlike Hamas in Gaza, the ‘rebels’ place their weapons in heavily populated areas of the city, drawing lethal fire from Assad’s military, and destroying much of the city around them.

al-Nusrah has now given notice to airlines that they risk being fired upon if they fly over the city. According to the statement, broadcast on Al-Jazeera on December 21, al Nusrah said its fighters had surrounded Aleppo’s Nayrab airport, and that they intended to fire on it and on any planes flying over it. Al-Nusrah warned that they would use 23mm and 57mm caliber anti-aircraft guns to down any planes in the area.

Although it would seem that the situation in Syria could not get worse, the reality is that it is likely to get much worse. The killing will go on, supported by funding for the ‘opposition’ from the State Department, working with and through Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Earlier this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted that Al Qaeda and other organization, including some which are on the US ‘terrorist list’, are an integral part of the Syrian opposition.

Like they say:"choose your friends wisely." Or keep your nose out of situations where you don't have a clue about what is really happening on the ground. I'm sure the U.S. policy advisers in the Pentagon and State Dept. thought this was going to be another easy regime change like Libya....which was also done with a large contingent of mercenaries, mostly gathered from Sub-Sahara Africa, and after the war in Libya, are now trying to turn the West African nation of Mali into an Islamic state. It should be mentioned that there still is an ongoing genocide occurring in Libya, as Gadaffi's tribal region is still under seige, including aerial bombardment from the Government coalition forces. But that story rarely pops up in our news, as the only thing talked about after the war was the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi.

Whatever.....it looks like Syria is going to be a much dirtier and bloodier conflict to micromanage, if for no other reason, because it is a multiethnic nation with large religious minorities, just like pre-invasion Iraq! And, unlike Gadaffi, the Assads may not have friends, but the other Shiite forces in Lebanon, Iraq and especially Iran, are well aware that overthrowing Syria is the last domino before there is an all out assault against Iran and Hezbollah and their allies in Lebanon.....although from the looks of things in Iraq, the Maliki Government looks like it has decided that they want Russia as an ally, rather than the U.S., and may be ready to make a move soon in purging and ethnically cleansing Sunni strongholds in Baghdad and other cities where the Sunni populations are being blamed for the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks against civilians in the last year. It may take the U.S. even longer to mount their planned invasion of Iran, since these dominos aren't falling as quickly as expected, and Russia appears now that they are going to make their own behind the scenes final stand to maintain the Assad Government in Syria, and the Hezbollah-dominated Government in Lebanon.

Did America actually inflame the Arab Spring in Syria in order to launch a proxy war against Iran? Remember...no more Rove and his band o' merry neocons to blame.

Depends on the country:

Libya: Yes

Tunisia: Yes

Egypt: After making a deal with the Army Guys, Yes

Syria: Yes; and the U.S. was giving arms to that Al Nusra group in Syria as far back as 2005, that they declare to be terrorists today

Yemen: No. As long as your despot allows us to have military bases in your country, and to be able to bomb anywhere in your country with impunity....no democracy for you!

Bahrain: No. Same as Yemen. Even though most of you are Shias...well, considering that we are a on a war-footing with Iran, and our Sunni Wahabbi fanatic friends who let us pump out your oil in Arabia and the Persian Gulf, consider your version of Islam to be heresy and oppose Shias ruling in any and every Mid-East state....no democracy for you either! And we need your Sunni despot to stay right where he is, since he not only allows us to pump out your oil under terms we like, he also has generously allowed us to maintain one of the largest U.S. naval bases off U.S. soil....so, you guys, don't listen to all this stuff about democracy either....unless you want to move to one of those other countries that we have okay'd for Arab democracy!

DogOnPorch · January 4, 2013

I've got a great idea! Let's invade the USA. Peace will be the result!

(snarf)

You fellows are real cards...I'll file you all under the heading 'Thinks the Vietnam War was a US invasion.'

bush_cheney2004 · January 5, 2013

....Leaders of the Free Syrian Army, the loose-knit rebel umbrella group that the United States seeks to bolster, expressed exasperation that the United States, which has refused to provide weapons throughout the conflict that has killed more than 40,000 people, is now opposing a group they see as a vital ally.

Tough tinsel....nobody else is getting excited about thousands of dead Syrians either....not even Maher Arar. But if it spills over into Turkey, NATO will do its thing and that includes Canada. Syria has always been a pain in the ass, so nothing has really changed.

Signals.Cpl · January 5, 2013

Tsk tsk...taking it personally, are we? Face it, the Soviet Union and then Russia supplied Syria with weapons. Not NATO. Ironically, many of those former Soviet weapons now find practical use in the IDF.

http://en.wikipedia....variants#Israel

Seems to me you are having serious problem with time perception...we are not talking about 1973 we are talking about 2011-2012 and where the weapons for the rebels are/were coming from. I don't take it personally I am having a hard time following your disjointed posts...

DogOnPorch · January 5, 2013

Seems to me you are having serious problem with time perception...we are not talking about 1973 we are talking about 2011-2012 and where the weapons for the rebels are/were coming from. I don't take it personally I am having a hard time following your disjointed posts...

No worries, I'm amazed you think Syria was free of Russian weapons before 2011-2012.

GostHacked · January 5, 2013

Tsk tsk...taking it personally, are we? Face it, the Soviet Union and then Russia supplied Syria with weapons. Not NATO. Ironically, many of those former Soviet weapons now find practical use in the IDF.

http://en.wikipedia....variants#Israel

We are talking about the Syrian rebels, under the banner of the Free Syrian Army which is in fact being supported by NATO. No one is disputing that Russia has been supplying Syria, more specifically the Assad governing body in Syria, with arms for years, that is not part of the argument anyways.

Signals.Cpl · January 5, 2013

No worries, I'm amazed you think Syria was free of Russian weapons before 2011-2012.

And I am actually shocked at your level of selective reading...

Let me try this again but this time I will use small words...

Syria...did...have...Russian...made...weapons...before...2011...but...there...is...no...guarantee(too big of word for you I guess) way...for...us...to...determine know...where...the...rebels...got...their...weapons...

Its like talking to a wall, you ignore the questions you don't like and mangle everything else. You remind me of fox news...

DogOnPorch · January 5, 2013

Personal attacks again...sigh. I thought better of you.

bush_cheney2004 · January 5, 2013

Personal attacks again...sigh. I thought better of you.

<Sigh> ...it always seems to go that way when challenged. Such passion...such fury...that's Amore !!

DogOnPorch · January 5, 2013

<Sigh> ...it always seems to go that way when challenged. Such passion...such fury...that's Amore !!

I'm willing to believe that NATO is, in fact, supplying 'Syrian rebels' if some sort of proof can be leveled rather than some 'expert' in an article with less or equal knowledge as you or I on the subject. I grew up...as did you...with Syria firmly in the proxy grasp of the Warsaw Pact...as was Egypt...but not Jordan. Seems that, as mentioned, the blame for this civil war is being shifted away from the real perps and into the realm of Canada and the US...ie NATO. Wild scenarios that defy Occam's Razor are taken over the obvious culprits. Seriously...Albania is providing the Weapons? Bulgaria? Romania? C'mon, people. Who has interests in Syria? Big interests....

Signals.Cpl · January 5, 2013

I'm willing to believe that NATO is, in fact, supplying 'Syrian rebels' if some sort of proof can be leveled rather than some 'expert' in an article with less or equal knowledge as you or I on the subject. I grew up...as did you...with Syria firmly in the proxy grasp of the Warsaw Pact...as was Egypt...but not Jordan. Seems that, as mentioned, the blame for this civil war is being shifted away from the real perps and into the realm of Canada and the US...ie NATO. Wild scenarios that defy Occam's Razor are taken over the obvious culprits. Seriously...Albania is providing the Weapons? Bulgaria? Romania? C'mon, people. Who has interests in Syria? Big interests....

Lets get back to the proof that Saddam had WMDs in 2003... I mean after all there was little in the way of up to date intel on the subject and it makes no sense that a brutal dictator who knew he was getting removed from power suddenly decided to play nice and not use the weapons and give them to Syria... 1) Why would Saddam do that? 2) If he did that why to Syria? Why not Iran? He donated a good chunk of his Air Force to them in 1990-1991 so why not throw in the WMDs that he apparently had? If we are following your logic he grew a conscience and didn't want to use them.

Its funny how with your selective reading skills you will choose some random portion of the above post and either make a lame attempt at humour/sarcasm or you will decide to go and post another one of your pretty and irrelevant pictures.

Signals.Cpl · January 5, 2013

Personal attacks again...sigh. I thought better of you.

Well you are all over the place, you answer with pretty little pictures from time periods we are not discussing then you throw around "answers" that are as twisted, unintelligible vague as possible while attempting to make fun of the conversation as a whole. I am beginning to see that you are here to confuse the issue rather than discuss the issue and any related events.