Protests in Syria - Discussion Thread

[Camera]

And yet you are oversimplifying the things
KSA is not a monolithic gov. There are tenth if not hundred of streams of power source, power struggles, machinations and manipulations, each son or cousin of the King pushing his own agenda as far as possible
You make it sounds like KSA was a great democratic secularist protector (when Syria is the big evil)
Come on
Please
Now that's ridiculous

In Lebanon KSA supports Fatha al Islam as well as in Gaza strip
They offers money to the Hamas martyr families (Qatar did it too)
The funding of the MB and the killers of Sadate came directly from Ryad

And icing on the cake the wahabit hate alawits/shias as strongly as they hate jews
So please your whole honey pouring on the KSA rotten policy is way too far here

No honey pouring. Read the thread of the discussion from the start to see what is all about.

Otherwise, there are different points in your post that are not accurate.
In the last decade, financial grants to Palestinian suicide bombers were offered by Irak (in the time of Saddam) and by Iran. Not by KSA. For Qatar, I'm not aware...
Others points are irrelevant to the present: Saddat was assassinated 30 years ago.

Don't get me wrong. I do not argue KSA is a mOderate state. It is a complex entity in which there is a state policy and there are parallel policies funded by individuals that are radicals.

[KoTeMoRe]

On the last decade? Which decade would that be? 2002-2012? Tell me more about Iraq sponsoring suicide bombers from 2002 onwards?

[EITAN88]

On the last decade? Which decade would that be? 2002-2012? Tell me more about Iraq sponsoring suicide bombers from 2002 onwards?

In the last decade, financial grants to Palestinian suicide bombers were offered by Irak (in the time of Saddam) and by Iran. Not by KSA. For Qatar, I'm not aware...

Forgot that you are on his ignore list?

[Mordoror]

financial grants to Palestinian suicide bombers were offered by Irak (in the time of Saddam) and by Iran. Not by KSA

Well that site begs to differ : http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../saudipal.html

Others points are irrelevant to the present: Saddat was assassinated 30 years ago.

Still relevant in the way you said KSA was not supporting MB. It was. And still is :

http://www.thenation.com/blog/168871...-times-missed#

Don't get me wrong. I do not argue KSA is a mOderate state. It is a complex entity in which there is a state policy and there are parallel policies funded by individuals that are radicals.

Well that' s granted. But you are dismissing some official activities of the KSA royal family members. I gave you 2 examples above. There are hundred others

There is indeed an influence (political, religious, economical and ethnic) struggle in the ME between the shias AND sunnis. KSA wants to be the leader of the laters. Now a third player is emerging (Qatar) but the main choke point is between the wahabi arabs of the peninsula and the shia persians. Both are playing proxies. The only differnce is that one is declared Western best ally while the second is seen as a little devil. That's a pity because between both i am not sure that the last one is the most dangerous. Iran has only a regional ambition. KSA (et all) have a global ambition.
We are just feeding an enraged dog that will bite us in the end.

[Camera]

Eitan:

Thanks for reminding him.

[kalerab]

1.A moderate in my books, is one who does NOT indulge into civil wars and tries to appease. Hariri was not one. The Mafia according to your definition falls into the moderate category. Hell Assad is thus a moderate.
2. The debt was absolutely abyssal. The state of destruction? Actually that is not a very tought out answer. Beirut being totally gutted and work being scarce, Hariri could have cashed on pretty fast. Coming from three consecutive real estate bubbles in Albania, one knows that building pays faster in reconstruction mode. The fact is that Hariri was not too shabby with graft and theft. He was not too keen on having the Saudis on his table and was starting to move his arse around. Noting that Rafic Hariri was chosen as PM in 1992 and that he several times used the armed forces to crack down on protest. The fact that the West forgot that aspect of Hariri´s rule, shows on the relative quality of the Western Press. No offence meant.
3. One does not plan his own demise. Especially when everybody will point fingers at you. and the influx of redundant workers would make for a VERY unhealthy environment.
4. It was the Sunni Led Iraqi government that attacked Koweit, and it was some Sunni led wahabi bunch that offered to free it from them. I think they were name Al something. Sectarian violence?

1. In that case could you find one prominent Lebanese politician who is not extremist? In my books, we are talking about zelaotry, not corrupt mafia-state. From that point of view, I do not see many reasons to call Assad extremist. He supports extremists, sure, but he is not one himself although he runs state-mafia as well. Guess that depends on the definition.
2. I do not understand here. Main field of operation of Solidere was contruction and reconstruction in order to kick-start Beirut tourism which was one of the main source of economy before the civil war. I know that Solidere financing is not and was not crystal clear, rumours flying around about Rafic owning majority thourgh daughter and sister companies of his financial empire which he used for sucking out money from it (surely true to some extent), however its financing was also provided by Gulf sponsors from Dubai and Riyad. Rafic and later Saad connections to House of Saud are not secret either, after all Rafic was a former Saudi representative and was one of the main force behind Taif Agreement. Anyway, the debt sky-rocketed, however improvement to Beirut was highly visible although grand theft happened and is happening up till this day. I´ll take a shot and say that corruption in ministries under Berri (Amal) is even on higher level. Sad truth of Lebanon is that you don´t have a good politicians there, they are all corrupted, it differs only on which level. Saad is meanwhile incompetent as he prooved during his government, Nasrallah is a cvnt, Berri corrupted as hell, Aoun - no comment and Jumblatt just plays on king of Druze. Glad that I don´t have to choose between them.
3. Those are just speculations. Hezbollah is pointing fingers at Israel whom they accuse of rising tensions between the sunnis and shias, while STL clearly linkes it to HA and therefore to Syria. Fact is that Rafic was a long-time pain in the arse of Syria and his removal from government didnt change much in this matter. it is just not occupation but also supplement of arms to Hezbollah where Rafic was main sponsor behind the disarm-the-Hezbies campaign which continued after his death (even Aound was one-time grand supporter of it) and the pressure was lifted after the 2006 war.
4. Thats different. Sionora was an ally of Saudi Arabia. Fatah al-Islam was not only targeting shias but also government, army etc. KSA already had their interest secured in Future Movement, what would be the reason for them to destabilize friendly government? Iraq and KSA never liked each other, despite KSA financial support of Saddam during Iran war what he later refused to pay back (and than attacked Kuwait and threatened to take Saudi oil fields).

[Andy_UA]

Russia sending three landing ships to Syria base


http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...sk=view&id=547

Ropucha or Alligator? Seems like Alligator class is better for evacuation mission...

There will be no evacuation. Because the base only has a couple of russian servicemen anyway.

[m4rs75]

William Hague: UK to step up help for Syrian rebels
guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 August 2012

The British government intends to step up help to the Syrian opposition, William Hague has revealed.

As diplomatic efforts falter, underlined by the resignation of the UN envoy Kofi Annan on Thursday, the foreign secretary disclosed that Britain has been helping elements of the Syrian rebels in a "practical and non-lethal way", adding: "And we will help them more."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...p-syria-rebels

[KoTeMoRe]

Forgot that you are on his ignore list?

Said it, he is not on mine. And that does not dispense him from factually checking his sources. Which he NEVER does. From 1990 to 2000 there have not been more than two dozen of suicide attacks. Saddam had his funds largely channeled through 1 bank that would pay to specific Arabic banks. That was BNP Paribas.
Oil for Food and all the Shabang. Therefore all are traceable to a point. That was one of the blows the Israeli IDF *papers* took when the system was dismantled. BNP accounts were checked and very little had trickled to unknown sources. So again, unless Saddam was willing to send money in cash to Paliwood (which proved a bit troublesome when the funds were seized by the PA in early 2000) I fail to see the possibility them actually sponsorig throroughly Boom boom parties in Israel. But I see them sponsoring all parties in their senseless Intifada moves.

[TrenchDigger]

Kofi Annan resignation on UN envoy for Syria and strong confrontation of great powers resulted in increasing hostility in fights amongst combatants in Syria. 50 victims of fighting in Hama. In shelling attack in Damascus 15 dead. Syria regrets departure of Kofi Annan, while USA and France, in their first statements, note need to stop the violence and for president Bashar Al-Assad to resign.

Annan cited, as a reason for his resignation, "lack of support", "inner-accusations" of constant members of UN Security council and stoppage of peace process "in a moment when Syrian people desperately need something to be done".
Annan resignation will "untie hands" to supporters of using force to solve Syrian question, said deputy head of Russia's Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov. "He was an honorable international mediator, but there are those who want to get him out of the game so that their hands were free to take action by force. It is already clear," wrote Gatilov on Twitter, as reported via news agency RIA Novosti.

The United Nations General Assembly today will vote on the resolution of the Arab countries condemning the violence in Syria and is expected to be easily adopted, as the draft resolution dropped two requirements: that President Bashar el Assad's resignation and that other countries implement sanctions on Syria because of the civil war. The resolution was prepared by Saudi Arabia, under intense lobbying of Bahrain and Egypt.

Russian Ambassador to UN Vitaly Churkin said he could not support an "extremely unbalanced resolution on Syria" in which accused is only one party. According to him, those countries that are ready to "push" the resolution are supplying arms to Syrian opposition groups. Russia and China, according to AP, opposed the draft resolution, as expected, and these countries previously in three sessions of the UN Security Council vetoed the resolution on Syria, which would open the door introducing sanctions that country, and even possible military intervention.

Clashes more and more violent

At least 15 civilians, including two children, were killed by mortar fire in a Palestinian refugee camp Jarmouk, in Damascus. "We do not know who opened fire" last night at the camp, announced today the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (OSDH). Government forces have previously attacked the refugee camp, home to nearly 150,000 Palestinians and their descendants who fled the Arab-Israeli war 1948th year. Palestinian refugees have tried to stand aside during the 17-monthly mess, but their camp was located in parts of Damascus, where rebels want to take control, and were eventually drawn into the conflict.

Unnamed Turkish official said that in the past 24 hours about 1.000 Syrians, including a brigadier general, fled to Turkey, bringing the number of refugees in the country to 45 500 compared to 44 000 at the end of last month.

source:

http://www.***.rs/

[Camera]

Well that site begs to differ : http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../saudipal.html

The Al-Aqsa Intifada was a sub-group of Arafat's Fatah which controlled the PLO which controlled the Palestinian Authority. A secular entity and a legitime political partner that diverted funds provided by the donor states, including the USA and EU, to renew with terror. I can believe KSA provided it with funds directly. Nevertheless, the KSA policy, regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was a moderate one at the time as reflected by the Saudi Peace Initiative.

We were speaking about the radical religious terror groups - Hamas and Islamic Jihad - both funded by Iran and Syria.

Still relevant in the way you said KSA was not supporting MB. It was. And still is :

http://www.thenation.com/blog/168871...-times-missed#

The first visit of Mosri abroad was to KSA. Egypt needs her financial support in the difficult economical context of the country.
Nevertheless, and that's what I was pointing to, during the Presidential elections, KSA medias supported openly the Morsi's secular rival.

Well that' s granted. But you are dismissing some official activities of the KSA royal family members. I gave you 2 examples above. There are hundred others

There is indeed an influence (political, religious, economical and ethnic) struggle in the ME between the shias AND sunnis. KSA wants to be the leader of the laters. Now a third player is emerging (Qatar) but the main choke point is between the wahabi arabs of the peninsula and the shia persians. Both are playing proxies. The only differnce is that one is declared Western best ally while the second is seen as a little devil. That's a pity because between both i am not sure that the last one is the most dangerous. Iran has only a regional ambition. KSA (et all) have a global ambition.
We are just feeding an enraged dog that will bite us in the end.

The Shia/Sunni conflict is important but it is one of factors of the game.
While I agree with you about Iran's regional ambitions, the KSA global ambitions are more doubtful.

Sure, there are ideological currents in KSA that push to this path: an Islamic Caliphate, and so on... This idea is also in the heart of the MBs ideology. But KSA's state policy is not adopting these ideological trends and, IMO, won't adopt them in the future for the simple reason: KSA and the other Gulf Monarchies are rich. All the other Arab states are poor. KSA will pay lip service to different Islamic ideologies, will throw a bone here and there to her Arab brothers, but will keep the present situation. KSA has nothing to win from an hypothetical materialization of these ideologies.

[KoTeMoRe]

1. In that case could you find one prominent Lebanese politician who is not extremist? In my books, we are talking about zelaotry, not corrupt mafia-state. From that point of view, I do not see many reasons to call Assad extremist. He supports extremists, sure, but he is not one himself although he runs state-mafia as well. Guess that depends on the definition.
2. I do not understand here. Main field of operation of Solidere was contruction and reconstruction in order to kick-start Beirut tourism which was one of the main source of economy before the civil war. I know that Solidere financing is not and was not crystal clear, rumours flying around about Rafic owning majority thourgh daughter and sister companies of his financial empire which he used for sucking out money from it (surely true to some extent), however its financing was also provided by Gulf sponsors from Dubai and Riyad. Rafic and later Saad connections to House of Saud are not secret either, after all Rafic was a former Saudi representative and was one of the main force behind Taif Agreement. Anyway, the debt sky-rocketed, however improvement to Beirut was highly visible although grand theft happened and is happening up till this day. I´ll take a shot and say that corruption in ministries under Berri (Amal) is even on higher level. Sad truth of Lebanon is that you don´t have a good politicians there, they are all corrupted, it differs only on which level. Saad is meanwhile incompetent as he prooved during his government, Nasrallah is a cvnt, Berri corrupted as hell, Aoun - no comment and Jumblatt just plays on king of Druze. Glad that I don´t have to choose between them.
3. Those are just speculations. Hezbollah is pointing fingers at Israel whom they accuse of rising tensions between the sunnis and shias, while STL clearly linkes it to HA and therefore to Syria. Fact is that Rafic was a long-time pain in the arse of Syria and his removal from government didnt change much in this matter. it is just not occupation but also supplement of arms to Hezbollah where Rafic was main sponsor behind the disarm-the-Hezbies campaign which continued after his death (even Aound was one-time grand supporter of it) and the pressure was lifted after the 2006 war.
4. Thats different. Sionora was an ally of Saudi Arabia. Fatah al-Islam was not only targeting shias but also government, army etc. KSA already had their interest secured in Future Movement, what would be the reason for them to destabilize friendly government? Iraq and KSA never liked each other, despite KSA financial support of Saddam during Iran war what he later refused to pay back (and than attacked Kuwait and threatened to take Saudi oil fields).

You are getting very blurry here.

I am telling you:

a. Hariri was not a moderate, nor was he a man of the people. Several time he was opposed by the street (mostly poor sunnis) because of his plans to *clean up* the city and make way for his megalomaniac Beirut.
b. The main field of Solidere was infrastructure from 1992 to 1996. They failed miserably to that. Hariri privatized almost everything in Lebanon and still managed to run a debt? We are speaking about a 36 billion USD debt in 2004. He started with a 2 billion USD debt in 1992. There are many thing sone could say about how Lebanon was managed, but saying that the scam Lebanon turned out to be would have NO consequences...that is a stretch. Hell as said the Hariri plan relied on foreign workforce. You could see Palestinians working in black, Syrians getting paid peanuts and yet the Projects wre overbudgeted...Improvement to Beirut? Highly Visible? Where? Beirut became unaffordable by late 1990´s. Over 40% of the population were forced to relocate from 1990 to 2000. Hariri could have been shot dead by any destitute Sunni and that would have not made any difference, the man was despised, not loved. The opportunism that was shown by many to support his dead body is just the most dantesque middle eastern drama you would ever witness.

c. Again, you do not kill you Cash Cow. Lebanon was going bankrupt, and people wanted their money back. Syria was just too happy to see Hariri send Lebanon to the ground which Syria would have then recovered. Hariri by any standart could have formed what ever government it wanted, he had no Cash to function...Politics are easy. Mob politics are even easier. Saddam invaded Kuwait because the KSA undercut him and killed his budget projections (lowering the oil price). I fail to see why the KSA would not actually kill Hariri for those billions of debt...it is really simple.

d. Siniora maybe was an ally of KSA, but the issue is that the group in question were already sponsored. Take this as a probable plan B from KSA that was not longr needed. What do you do? You give them up. Easy Peasy, not the first time to happen actually.

[Camera]

Eitan:

I know very well why I do ignore this ignorant who is knowledgeable only in appearance. Saddam's grants to suicide bombers was an official policy during the 2nd Intifada, up to the US invasion in 2003.

This report dates 2002:

The Iraqi leader's payments to the families of dead Palestinian terrorists means more trouble for Yasser Arafat, writes Paul McGeough in the West Bank.

The hall was packed and the intake of breath was audible as a special announcement was made to the war widows of the West Bank - Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...004766310.html

[KoTeMoRe]

Paying after the attack, to the families, is not handing over money to Hamas...as usual, you do not read your own arguments. The arguments was, Syria sponsoring the most radical factions in Palestine and the KSA the most moderate...

Good luck with that.

[EITAN88]

Russia's Defense Ministry denied on Friday that it plans to send naval vessels to the Syrian port of Tartus, the state-owned RIA news agency said.

It dismissed reports, attributed by Russian news agencies to a source in the general staff, that Moscow was sending three large landing ships with marines aboard.

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=279975