There are many false allegations made by the Western media about the situation in Syria. The reckless and unbalanced Western policy in the region is responsible for the emergence of extremist organizations such as the Free Syrian Army, AL-Qaeda, Al Nusra Front and ISIS. Hillary Clinton acknowledged the United States role in funding extremists in Afghanistan in the eighties to fight the Soviet Union. US President Donald Trump has accused Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, not the Syrian president or Iran of creating ISIS.
One of the allegations is that moderate rebels fight the government forces in Syria. It is ironic and folly of those who claim its possible to classify Syrian rebels in Moderate or Extremist. No sovereign country, no matter how democratic or dictatorial, can accept a change in the status quo that a group of citizens are trying to impose on the state and other fellow citizens by force. They are a criminal group that government must eliminate without delay or mercy. What are the terms to classify the Syrian opposition into moderate or extremist? The Free Syrian Army before the emergence of any Islamist organizations such as Al Nusra Front and ISIS carried out criminal acts such as cutting off Syrian and civilian soldiers, burning Syrian citizens alive, recruiting children and forcing them to shoot and beheaded prisoners and throwing innocent Syrians out of rooftops and high places. The province of Idlib is full of such moderate Syrian opposition from foreign nationalities, especially Uzbek's and Chechen's, and from various Arab nationalities, but the free world still weeps for innocent civilians and warns against the Syrian Arab army imminent attack on the province that has become a hotbed of extremism and terrorism.
Let's imagine that the Syrian Foreign Ministry released a statement declared the Cribs and Bloods gangs a moderate American opposition and called on the US government to release the prisoners of both gangs and negotiate a peace treaty with their leadership. However, nothing new in that for the American government, which practices duality. It intervenes in the affairs of sovereign countries, at the same time, demands from them the opposite, not to intervene in American affairs. It is the same government that used weapons of mass destruction against Iraqis; meanwhile, condemns the Syrian government on false allegations of using those weapons against innocent civilians. It is the government that intervened to overthrow democratically elected regimes starting with Guatemala, Chile, Argentina and now Venezuela, but demanding from the Syrian president's freedoms for his people. If the US government concern for the people welfare and well-being, it wouldn't have collaborated with the bloody Augusto Pinochet regime in Chile or the military general's regime in Argentina, where a large number of people in both countries have disappeared, estimated at 30,000.
The ultimate goal of policies pursued by successive US governments in the Middle East is to create instability, not the interests of the people in the region. American and European governments are responsible for the Arab Spring in order to elevate Islamic movements to power, a pretext for intervention and fuel the clash of civilizations in the Middle East. All American struggles in the region failed to make any positive change and only spread havoc, chaos, and a wave of refugees, the largest since World War II. An average American will ask why they hate us? I answer that no one hates Americans, but they hate their government foreign policies. American media lied to the people and described the situation in Syria as a civil war to justify intervention and support separatist movements, especially the Kurd's. The US attempts at intervention in Syria failed, but American policymakers began to block Syria economically, but they would fail as they did all those years in Cuba, a small country that resisted and was not subject to, and Syria would.
End
I answer "no." Surprising as it may seem to some, the Middle East and its peoples have their own variegated interests and conflicts that long predate Western Imperialism and interventionism. They are not some kind of chess set who, when not in use, go into some kind of stasis but only start acting when moved by international players, and, if left alone, would remain still.
As for Syria, I have no reason to believe anything from the Fascist Syrian Shia regime. I have no reason to believe anything from the Theocratic and Fascist Sunnis who oppose them. I have no reason to trust anyone in that country all of whom are apparently looking out for their zero-sum tribal interests.
We took Iraq hands down and then started loosing people to insurgents.
If Bush American life and limb were important then we should have made the troop surge right away.
Furthermore, we needed to make them behave for their oil giving the Iraqi leadership reason to bring order.
Then you would have a stable Iraq to support Syria in the Arab Spring.
Then we would have the resources to help out in the Sudan and be in a better position in Africa to China.
You are no different than the one before you.
First of all, the regime in Syria isn't Shia but a secular regime. Second, the variegated interests and conflicts in the Middle East isn't a reason for the imperialism movement that relies on racial reason and power elements. Finally, it's very clear that Western powers practice dual standards in Syria and Iraq. Both countries were doing just fine before the American invasion and intervention. I found a zero moral sentiment behind your comment, absolutely zero.
The US interests in the Middle East are....
1. Support of our allies.
2. Continuation of commerce.
3. Prevention of terrorism
4. Countering the USSR now Russian influence.
How are any of those goal served by instability?
And was it not Arab on Arab violence (Arab Spring) that caused the latest instability?
I have to admit, you always amaze me with your views. You don't have allies in the region unless you mean the ultra-orthodoxy Islam and associated organization like Al-Qaeda.
Uh.....no, neither country was doing "fine". Saddam, for instance, had invaded his neighbors and had used chemical weapons on his own people to put down their resistance to his rule.
You said it your self, to put down resistance against him. Why do you expect him keeping silent of people revolting against his rule? If these rebels were successful, they would kill him and his family. Saddam was sadistic criminal but Iraqis weren't angels.
Ridiculous claims made.
The US has never been allied with Al Qaeda nor "the ultra-orthodoxy Islam". Please stop that lie.
The US interests in the Middle East are....
1. Support of our allies. (Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
2. Continuation of commerce.
3. Prevention of terrorism
4. Countering the USSR now Russian influence.
How are any of those goal served by instability?
Cat got your tongue?
Kinda sums up the Middle East.
American aren't angles too
You are the one making ridiculous claims. Hilary Clinton admitted in front of Congress committee that the U.S involved with the Ultra-Orthodoxy Islam. The current president, Donald Trump, accused Barack Obama of founding ISIS. You think that you will hold something against me by keep repeating naive views and opinions. Then you talk about the instability, you made fool of yourself. Iraq is a clear example of the instability your intervention created, the country become million times worst than Saddam era. Senator John McCain met with opposition leaders in Syria including ISIS leader in rebels controlled base nearby the city of Aleppo. What is your comment on that? don't tell me that it was Photoshop.
You said it your self, to put down resistance against him. Why do you expect him keeping silent of people revolting against his rule? If these rebels were successful, they would kill him and his family. Saddam was sadistic criminal but Iraqis weren't angels.
You are the one making ridiculous claims. Hilary Clinton admitted in front of Congress committee that the U.S involved with the Ultra-Orthodoxy Islam. The current president, Donald Trump, accused Barack Obama of founding ISIS. You think that you will hold something against me by keep repeating naive views and opinions. Then you talk about the instability, you made fool of yourself. Iraq is a clear example of the instability your intervention created, the country become million times worst than Saddam era. Senator John McCain met with opposition leaders in Syria including ISIS leader in rebels controlled base nearby the city of Aleppo. What is your comment on that? don't tell me that it was Photoshop.
You are the one making ridiculous claims. Hilary Clinton admitted in front of Congress committee that the U.S involved with the Ultra-Orthodoxy Islam.
What is "Ultra-Orthodoxy Islam"? The Wahhabi sect?
Drop the code language and speak plainly.
You are the one making ridiculous claims. Hilary Clinton admitted in front of Congress committee that the U.S involved with the Ultra-Orthodoxy Islam.
It's a known fact, Ultra-Orthodoxy Islam is Wahhabi
Saudi Government =/= Wahhabism
I disagree with you. ISIS and the Arab Afghan mujahedeen are the same. And I don't justify Saddam regime atrocities. He has the right to defend himself and his regime. American and European governments will do the same if they feel their countries at risk.Considering the US has been actively bombing ISIS for years, claims that the US created them are flat out dumb.
The Mujahideen were not the same as the Taliban, so you bringing them up is rather irrelevant.
Considering you tried to justify Saddam’s atrocities i think it’s safe to say you aren’t an impartial speaker when declaring something was “worse than Saddam”.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?