Syrian Rebels Set Peace Deadline For Assad

Syrian Rebels Set Peace Deadline For Assad

news.sky.com

Syrian rebels have given President Bashar Assad 48 hours to abide by the international peace plan to end violence in the country - or face the consequences.
In a statement posted on YouTube, Colonel Qassim Saadeddine of the Free Syrian Army said there was "no justification" in only one side respecting the truce.
"The Annan plan arrived in Syria and Assad buried it in front of the world by committing massacres in Houla, Homs and Hama, Allepo, Deraa and Deir al Zour, Damascus, Idlib and Tartous and Latakia," he said.
"The joint command of the free army inside Syria... issues an ultimatum

(visit the link for the full news article)

This looks like it could turn out to be the tipping point that Kofi Annan warns of HERE (BBC News, 31st May)

The massacre of civilians (specifically so many children, apparently executed in cold blood), associated propaganda (and true evidence) laid out before the world leaves no doubt in my mind that the UN will act soon to intervene militarily.

Seeing as Iran is an ally of Syria, there could ultimately be a situation where Iranian troops are fighting alongside Syrians against the 'rest of the world'. This might then leave the door open for the USA to 'intervene' in the affairs of Iran.

news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


what propaganda and what evidence? And has FSA abided ? no. If I was in place of assad I would have unleashed the biological arsenal on Western and arab and taken the West and the Arab nations down with Syria. Mutually assured destruction.

lol, that makes no sense if they're trying to garner respect and support.

Syrian rebels have given President Bashar Assad 48 hours to abide by the international peace plan to end violence in the country - or face the consequences.

give us peace or we'll fight you in a disorganized fashion, get slaughtered, then set another ultimatum citing warcrimes. cyclical.

reply to post by ludwigvonmises003


Propaganda = BBC News photos of Iraq temporary mortuary as supposed Syrian mortuary...
Actual evidence = UN Observers find the bodies of thirteen dead...

See the following:

Iranians are allegedly smuggling weapons into Syria

This gives more fuel to the fire of the idea that actions against Syria will morph into a reason for the US to attack Iran.

The US are standing back at the moment; however, once the UN send troops into Syria (and Iran get uppity as a result), the US will likely as not decide that the time is ripe to attack Iran, nuclear program or no nuclear program.


Heck - we know Iran are part of the axis of evil, and want nuclear weapons right? Well now, they actively support the slaying of women and children in Syria!!! Let's go knock some sense into them...

And so forth.

reply to post by yourmaker


Part of me wonders whether there is enough cohesion in the Syrian rebel camp throughout the nation to enable any representative to speak with such authority on behalf of the lot of them.

Might the statement be a well-timed excuse for the UN to step in and offer support when their deadline goes unheeded and all hell breaks loose (more so than it already has)...? Then later, the US would find an excuse to take action against Iran, as we all know they have been intending for a while:

USA talks the talk on Iran being in the line of American fire

Intelligence services and those who work in the shadows have been known to manipulate chaotic situations such as these in the past in order to enable actions that they may already have had on the cards.


All the links on this thread so far are from a very small timescale (recent days/ weeks), and to my mind demonstrate conclusively that some form of military action will take off against Syria/ Iran within a matter of weeks from today.

The evidence is not conclusive, the Rebels could have done this as a FFlag, to garner sympathy and help.
The US is looking for an excuse to get involved.....i trust none of the above.

reply to post by stirling


Don't look so much to the rebels as to the international forces involved/ on the edge of involvement/ with an interest in the outcome of their struggle.. I think that to consider this message 'from the rebels', as the MSM is reporting it, may be an incorrect stance to adopt. When do we ever trust the MSM? It could be that we're witnessing the beginnings of a Western-led false flag...

I'm suggesting that there are hands at play greater than those of the rebels themselves - though don't misunderstand me, its not that I believe their cause is not just, or that they haven't in some fashion decided to try and garner sympathy as you suggest.. Though that wouldn't be a false flag according to the definitions we're familiar with.

Consider both sides of the coin - or rather, all sides of the dice being rolled. Yes, the rebels may have made this threat. But were they encouraged to do so by the support of an as-yet unrevealed ally? If so, who are the likely candidates?

Or, is the offer of support hollow? Designed to push the rebels into an untenable scenario where greater massacres will occur as a result of their increased boldness? Massacres that would cause public outcry greater than we already see, 'forcing' an international intervention?

The rebels may not even have made an actual threat in this manner; I mean, where would the rebel command outpost be from which such orders are coordinated right across the country? And unless they have secretive support that we're not yet aware of, how is their threat-level to the Syrian government forces going to increase with any significance off the back of this threat?

Lots of food for thought, and many possible outcomes. I personally believe that we are witnessing the first overt moves of a war that will gradually spread its net across much of the globe. World War 3 if you like.

More propaganda. We in the West should have learned to recognise the signs by now... As one poster in the thread linked below comments, there's a strange sense of similarity in the air - between the proffered image of Iranian 'sanitization' activities, and those of the alleged WMD stockpiles in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

I add this info here, though it relates not to Syria, but to Iran, simply because I want to collect links on one page that highlight the increasing call to war with Iran being pumped through the MSM. The arrangement of the pieces upon the board is clear, with Syria as a possible 'blue touch-paper' scenario leading into a full-on war with Iran:

'Very clear' signs of Iran sanitizing military site, Western diplomat says.

The Americans are making a show of being disinterested in Syria for the time being, but I reckon they'll ultimately bring activities in Syria to the fore of their own reckoning - of the reasons why a war with Iran is not only necessary, but 'urgent'.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


Since the ceasefire began, if you remotely paid attention you would have noticed that the fighting never stopped.

The Syrian Government firstly will never pull troops out of any area infested by "rebels". The "rebels" in the other hands will use any means necessary to capture small pockets of territory in order to use as a base for further attacks, and to achieve their main goal and objective of regime change.

The "rebels" warning the Syrian Government is just propaganda, they are in no position to warn the Syrian Government, they are merely "wink, wink", "nudge, nudge"-ing the West to send more supplies to intensify the proxy war.

This will never end, another Afghanistan in the making.

reply to post by jihadbilkalam

Since the ceasefire began, if you remotely paid attention you would have noticed that the fighting never stopped.

I trust that isn't aimed at me, seeing as I have been paying attention? I mentioned nowhere regarding any supposed or actual cessation of fighting, and in fact have tried to draw attention to the growing problems of the region, and the way in which the situation could be manipulated by external groups...

Yes it doesnt look good
Russia and China will certainly have troops in Syria that will fight against Nato

The moment Nato start invading Syria
WW3 will officialy start for real

It was all manifactured from the start on
9/11 and war on terror

reply to post by Ben81


Thanks for the comment Ben - I just read your thread a moment ago, and was planning to add a link here anyway, seeing as I've been collecting links to relevant ATS threads and all...

Here's a link to Ben's thread: Clinton & Rice: Strike on Syria in the works

The war of words is complete, and it seems we are now moving into a war proper. Another one. And this time, Iran will end up in the firing line, which draws in Russia** and China, which draws in all sorts of other nations, most likely to include Israel and much of Europe.


**Russia are already involved according to the MSM... See the following quote from ATS user Hithe Merinos, taken from Ben81's thread linked above:

Now add this to the mix

A Russian cargo ship that Western officials say was heavily laden with weapons for the government of Syria docked at the Syrian port of Tartus last weekend, a rights group said on Thursday.

"Thursday's updated shipping databases show that the Professor Katsman did in fact dock in the port of Tartus on May 26, 2012 before heading to Piraeus, Greece," Sadia Hameed of Human Rights First told Reuters.

link

''Nation shall rise against nation...''

World War 3, Armageddon, the Apocalypse. Coming to a sad, tired old world near you in the next few days/ weeks.

This is the first time I'm going to add a link from this thread to my other recent thread, concerning a prophetic dream I had nine years ago which seemed to foretell the timing of the 'beginning of the end' in a surreal and surprisingly personal way, yet with overtones that ring out across the ages and plainly demonstrate a great deal of symbolic metaphor.

The Dark Lord Sauron is massing his forces. Here's the link:

9 year old prophetic dream, referring to 'beginning of end times'

Is this the first time an ATS prediction has come true? I haven't finished reading the trilogy yet. One more chapter to go, and it seems TPTB have launched their offensive, in mind and worded commitment if not yet in 'feet on the ground'. Well, save for the few aircraft carriers floating nearby and a couple of occupied countries either side of their main target.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment

Part of me wonders whether there is enough cohesion in the Syrian rebel camp throughout the nation to enable any representative to speak with such authority on behalf of the lot of them.

not likely. perhaps within one of the smaller out of sight groups, but you're mostly going to find the short sighted, "allah ahkbar" fighters that we cried so much about from 2003 to 2011 and beyond when we were fighting people like them.

Might the statement be a well-timed excuse for the UN to step in and offer support when their deadline goes unheeded and all hell breaks loose (more so than it already has)...? Then later, the US would find an excuse to take action against Iran, as we all know they have been intending for a while:

the UN won't do anything this time around. it simply can't when China and Russia have seats on the security council.

action against Iran has been ongoing since Iraq, by proxy. we are removing their proxy forces right now, and establishing cyberwarfare, chipping away at their defenses so to speak. i'm certain a targeted assassination of Iranian leadership wouldn't be out of the question once they know they could control the repurcussions of such an act.

Intelligence services and those who work in the shadows have been known to manipulate chaotic situations such as these in the past in order to enable actions that they may already have had on the cards.

no doubt, one could argue the entire mess in Syria, Libya etc.. are products of intelligence service influence

All the links on this thread so far are from a very small timescale (recent days/ weeks), and to my mind demonstrate conclusively that some form of military action will take off against Syria/ Iran within a matter of weeks from today.

Military action is the deterrent, not the end game in Syria.
the US won't attack them directly because they can't. well they could...
but the result is beyond them for the time being.

reply to post by yourmaker


Much of what you say I agree with, or understand - but what can be said of Susan Rice's comments of yesterday, regarding a direct strike against Syria? These words seem to amount to a commitment to act militarily against Syria, which is unusual because only a day or so earlier, the US position was one of shying away from even arming the rebels.

Seems things are moving forward apace at any rate. To my mind, it seems that the result of attacking Syria will be an uprising of forces against the USA, leading to an all-out global conflict - in turn leading to the sort of fractured society that will demand the roll-out of an NWO once the dust settles.

And then it will get even weirder... But I could be wrong.