8/28/2013

Introductory Background

What is happening in Syria is not a revolution against the Assad regime, it is an invasion of the country. From the beginning, the Islamist rebels were gathered from inside and outside the country and were generously financed, organized and armed by outside powers. Many of those rebels were  not Syrians at all and know little about the country they want to destroy in order to ‘liberate’. The invaders are outside powers who used disillusioned Muslims, of various nationalities, to do the killing on their behalf. This is not a secret conspiracy as the West’s intentions were obvious even before the rebellion started. America, Britain and France, once again have been the usual culprits. Their tools in the Middle East have been the same again: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Turkey.

The Assad undemocratic regime has never been popular, but neither was any Arab regime. Syria, like all Arab countries, needed to change, but the change needed to be to the better. Allowing Islamists, under whatever name, to take control of Syria is a cultural suicide and would take the country back to the seventh century. Syria was a reasonably stable country, considering its location in the Middle East. The Syrian people enjoyed some peace and stability for many decades in a region where peace and stability are alien concepts. All the different sects of the Syrian people lived in reasonable peace and harmony for centuries. There has been no incidents of Muslims killing other Muslims just because they happened to be from a different sect. Mosques, as well as churches, were safe. There was no time when Muslims harassed the Christians, killed them, beheaded their priests and torched their churches.

The Assad regime has been in control of Syria for forty years. Just like other Arab governments, the regime ruled with iron fist, dictatorship and political corruption, which are standard features of all Arab regimes. Until this crisis started, the president did not have the image of a murderer psychopath as Saddam Hussein did. Killing children and thousands of civilians were not on his CV. On the other hand, those evil practices have been known characteristic features of the Al Qaeda linked Islamists, who enjoy the Western support.

As far as the ordinary Syrian is concerned, the situation in the country did not get worse under the Assad regime, if anything there were signs that things were getting better.

Why stir up trouble now?

On the face of it, it is the alleged use of chemical weapons near Damascus, which made the West go crazy. The ethical principle is: a regime that uses chemical weapons must go. The Western politicians, being so ethical, are under obligation to act. It is interesting to note that these high moral Western politicians did not see a reason to interfere when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Halabja (1987) with eight thousands killed! In those days, Saddam was actually supported by the Western governments.

On the other hand, for those who followed the events, the West has been waiting impatiently for any opportunity to interfere to help the rebels. In the past, the Syrian regime never used chemical weapons against its people. Previous claims of chemical weapons use were investigated and the evidence pointed to the rebels, not the government.

The opposition forces failed to make substantial gains that justify the massive logistic and military support they enjoy. They have been showing signs of frustration that the West did not interfere directly in the conflict. The government forces were making substantial gains lately and it defies logic that they start using chemical weapons just when they started not to need them.

The Russians believe that the Western allegations are baseless and fabricated. I personally do not see why we should believe the Western politicians, who have amazing track record of corruption and lies, any more than other corrupt politicians. It does look that the recent claims of chemical weapons use were deliberately made and timed to be used by the West as a much needed excuse to attack Syria. Although the use of chemical weapons by the regime cannot be ruled out, it would be an unlikely political blunder, even suicide, as it would give political ammunition to the opposition and their Western backers. The claims of chemical weapons use were made by the terrorist groups, quickly highlighted by media with known sympathy to them and quickly believed by the war monger politicians who no longer can restrain their urge for blood-letting. The Western powers and their Middle Eastern stooges were waiting for the earliest opportunity to start their military intervention. When the opportunity failed to materialize, they made up one!

The events in Syria have to be considered in the light of some facts surrounding the conflict:

First: Syria is not an ally, or a puppet state, to the West. On the contrary, it kept close ties with Russia, China and Iran.

Second: The Assad regime committed what the West and Al Qaeda believe to be an un unforgivable sin in 1981, when President Hafez Al-assad cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood stronghold city of Hama. It happened as a result of a series of massacres committed by the Muslim Brotherhood against the Syrian army, the most important was an attack on the military academy with hundreds of young officers killed.

Third: The Muslim brotherhood has very strong ties with the West. There was no time when the Muslim Brotherhood ties with the West were weak or bad. We, in the West, know that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated all governments, main political parties, and influential organizations. In the UK, they are in key positions in the government, opposition party, both houses of parliament, all local councils, and local governments, as well as other organizations. The BBC is dominated by radical Muslims in the clothes of moderate ones, which is the Muslim Brotherhood trade mark, ditto  Universities and other academic institutions. Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood is so powerful in the UK that it forced unlabeled halal meat to be sold in the supermarkets to all the population, without telling anyone! Yes, they forced sharia on all, whether they like it or not. So much for Western democracy!

In the build-up to the Iraq war, the Muslims organized a one million demonstration in the streets of London to oppose the war. We do not see this enthusiasm with regard to the war on Syria because the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood are actively pushing for this war. The war on Syria is a war for the Islamists, therefore, it is blessed and an opportunity to take their revenge from the regime.

Fourth: Syria refused to allow Qatar to build its gas pipeline to Europe across the country, which would supply Europe with cheap alternative gas to the Russian gas.

Fifth: The loss of Egypt was a devastating blow to the US and its Islamists allies. They want to make sure that Syria falls to them. The West cannot just sit and watch the Assad regime making military gains on the ground. Intervention became inevitable.

The West ..

What can a western military intervention in Syria achieve? Is it going to do Syria any good? The definite answer is “No”.  The track record of the Western powers military interventions is appalling; think of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. They say they only want to weaken the regime, but a weak regime is a desperate one and dangerous and the risks of neighboring countries getting sucked into the conflict is a real nightmare. A failing regime would use chemical or other illegal weapons and would try to spread the filth of war as far as possible. I am afraid a war on Syria has great potential to involve other countries.