New 'massacre' reported in Syria's Hama province

reply to post by Peruvianmonk


As far as I can tell, it's next to impossible to determine, with any degree of certainty, who is really behind what. This civil uprising against the Syrian government has been carried out, for all intents and purposes, by al Qaeda operatives possibly funded by the CIA and/or other global interests. This is similar to the CIA funding and training of Bin Laden and the Afghani "Freedom Fighters" from the Cold War (those same people later became al Qaeda). So it doesn't seem like much a stretch to postulate that the US is, again, funding a rebelling faction in support of the greater goal of creating instability in a nation we plan to attack. And these "Syrian pro-government forces" that are alleged to have committed these heinous acts... the Syrian Government has steadfastly denied involvement in these civilian killings and denounced responsibility for the actions taken by these "pro-government" forces. Who's to say that these forces aren't also US-backed entities, tasked with creating world-wide public condemnation of the Syrian Government?

They may end up passing the reigns off to Russia predominantly and a few other influential Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran. These countries hold a lot of sway in the political arena in Syria unlike the U.S. or colonial powers. From what I have been reading it appears this may be the case.

Debkafile actually wrote an article a week or so ago which claimed about "5000 or so international forces going in in which Russia would lead," this concession to Russia is also a move to help persuade them about Iran in the upcoming talks in Moscow in a couple of weeks in which they will discuss Iran's nuclear ambitions.

These forces would be used to help quell the violence but, more importantly seize the weapons caches distributed across the country of Syria, and if they fell into the it wrong hands could be potentially devastating.

Anyways I just made a thread about this today. Kind of slipped through the cracks unnoticed but here's a link.

abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I noticed how the western powers on the media release say

'' militia aligned with Assads military ''

So, this wasnt actual military doing this, it was remote militia.

There's a big difference and its quite telling that the media has moved away from blaming assad, to now blaming factions symathetic to him.

In the end, this was nothing more than a bunch of armed gangs walking into a village and murdering people.

Who it takes orders from isnt really important, they are both doing the same crimes.

Good reply. Assad has promised free elections in 2014, so instead of fighting and destroying social infrastructure, why no spend some time in gaining political party experience and campaigning the agenda in a civilized and friendly way. Why fight with anybody at all and that too with well armed and trained government troops. Those who are fighting are destroying their own country and will only realize this later. Syria unlike Lybia is not oil rich nation and in these times of global financial crisis, no country can afford to throw in billions to rebuild and help the devastated people.

Russia and China continue to stand firm.

"The Shanghai group member states are against military interference in the affairs of this region [Middle East and North Africa], enforced 'handover of power', unilateral sanctions," a joint statement from leaders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation said.

"Member states stress the need to stop any violence on the territory of Syria wherever it is coming from, they respect broad nationwide dialogue, based on independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Syria." U.N.-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan, the former U.N. secretary-general, is to brief the Security Council in New York on Thursday. U.N. diplomats said they expected Annan to present a new proposal to rescue his failing peace plan by creating a "contact group" of world and regional powers. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cheng Guoping said on Thursday that both China and Russia would remain opposed to foreign intervention. "The Syrian issue should be resolved based on envoy Annan's six-point proposal within the UN framework,"

Cheng told a news conference. "You can't say that because you dislike a country's system, you can then think of ways to overturn its government."

www.guardian.co.uk...

There is no way they are going to make the same mistake as they did with Libya (In their eyes) and allow an overt foreign military presence/invasion of Syria through a UN SC vote, i.e. resolution 1973.

I don't see the US/NATO going it alone on this one.

The West needs to intervene. The country's people (Syria) is begging for us to help them. I think we should. At least send in Fighter / Drone support.

Russia and China support Human slaughter (innocent). We should stop delaying the inevitable. If War with Russia / China breaks out , it was going to happen eventually. I mean damn.

The Combined Armies of Russia / China / North Korea / Iran (the major players) could not defeat Nato. Only Nuclear weapons would defeat Nato. So most likely , Russia and China would do nothing if we intervened in Syria.

However , i believe the only reason we arent intervening in this , is because of Israel. Israel will be obliterated back to the stone age by Syria and Iran.

Oh its coming. The latest news shows that UN observers were shot at today. You may as well add Pakistan to that Russia, China alliance. I still think US, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Israel, India etc would be a tough out for those guys.

www.cbsnews.com...

Originally posted by milkyway12
The West needs to intervene. The country's people (Syria) is begging for us to help them. I think we should. At least send in Fighter / Drone support.

Russia and China support Human slaughter (innocent). We should stop delaying the inevitable. If War with Russia / China breaks out , it was going to happen eventually. I mean damn.

The Combined Armies of Russia / China / North Korea / Iran (the major players) could not defeat Nato. Only Nuclear weapons would defeat Nato. So most likely , Russia and China would do nothing if we intervened in Syria.

However , i believe the only reason we arent intervening in this , is because of Israel. Israel will be obliterated back to the stone age by Syria and Iran.

edit on 7-6-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by princeofpeace


No need to fight a whole regional or even world war. There are many more peaceful ways to solve the problem. If people want to help themselves then there are lots of changes they can make that might even be appreciated by the opposing parties. No need for financially strapped west to get into another war and bring a global recession.

What's incredible is that people STILL think there isn't an agenda of the NWO taking place.

PNAC, in 2000, listed the countries on the hitlist- Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran etc.

Syria has the potential to be the oil transport hub of the middle east (just open up a map and look where Syria is and what it borders), that's why they are funding 'rebels' to start a civil war through R2P or PRS, it's all set up and planned as part of the agenda.

I mean where have these 'Shabiha' come from, women and children are suddenly being murdered by them? Where were they before the uprising? Isn't it convenient that these pro Assad child killers show up just as the West pushes for intervention?

Are we to believe some shadowy figures who support Assad thought the best way for Assad to hold onto power is to go around shooting women and children? Just think about it from an objective stance-

A group, who support Assad and want him to retain power decide to go and create worldwide outcry against the Assad regime by killing innocent women and children.

Surely the purpose of committing such evil acts of murder would be to get the world in a position to intervene and stop Assad? But the MSM wants us to believe they support Assad by doing this?

Not a good sign from the ground.

Top United Nations officials assailed Syria’s government on Thursday after unarmed international cease-fire monitors trying to reach the site of a newly reported mass killing were blocked by government forces, warned to turn back and even fired upon, escalating a standoff that reflected a diplomatic stalemate over the increasingly violent conflict there.

www.nytimes.com...

Why would the Assad regime stop the monitors from seeing the massacre site if there was nothing to hide?

reply to post by Wonderer2012

A group, who support Assad and want him to retain power decide to go and create worldwide outcry against the Assad regime by killing innocent women and children. Surely the purpose of committing such evil acts of murder would be to get the world in a position to intervene and stop Assad? But the MSM wants us to believe they support Assad by doing this?

It is a fair question on the rationality of such actions.

Assad may not be fully in control of his security forces and is unlikely to be fully in control of Alawite militias across the country.

A journal article I have read may also offer some answers,

Resorting to violence in the context of a civil war in order to achieve compliance is generally referred to as “terrorism.” Although this is different from the term’s everyday use, its underlying logic is not; it encompasses two analytically distinct, though often overlapping, functions: elimination and deterrence. The victim of violence may be targeted to eliminate a particular risk (e.g., information leaks) and, also, to deter others from engaging in similar behavior; in other words, victims and targets of violence are distinct

“One of the most obvious and blatant benefits of atrocity is that it quite simply scares the hell out of people. The raw horror and savagery of those who murder and abuse cause people to flee, hide, and defend themselves feebly, and often their victims respond with mute passivity.” This goal is openly stated by both perpetrators and victims.

stathis.research.yale.edu...

This may not explain why the Syrian administration feel that this is a senseible course of action vis a vis their continued existence, under the amount of international scrutiny that they are, but offers an explanation of its hoped for effects on the populace.

I can only guess that Assad feels comfortable enough with Russian assurances that there will be no overt foreign intervention to continue in apparent attempts to cow the rebellion through terror.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov Thursday vowed there would be no UN Security Council mandate for outside intervention in Syria, indicating Moscow would use its veto to block any military action. "There will not be a Security Council mandate for outside intervention, I guarantee you that," Lavrov told reporters on the sidelines of a trip to Kazakhstan by President Vladimir Putin.

www.google.com...

That sounds pretty emphatic to me.

reply to post by milkyway12

The West needs to intervene. The country's people (Syria) is begging for us to help them. I think we should. At least send in Fighter / Drone support.

I cant believe it some people on ATS are already falling for the propaganda, this is the exact response the mainstream news outlets were hoping to hear.

I am not going to be fooled by the propaganda.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

I cant believe it some people on ATS are already falling for the propaganda, this is the exact response the mainstream news outlets were hoping to hear. I am not going to be fooled by the propaganda.

I think members are just worried and concerned for the people of Syria. It may be misguided and the wrong call on a foreign intervention but people feel impotent faced with this massive violence and just voice that "something must be done", it is understandable.

reply to post by Peruvianmonk


Do you know this is all propaganda? remember Danny the activist? first the mainstream news outlets blamed the attacks on the Goverment Thugs, and now they are blaming upon the alwhia community, without any proof.

Just like how they lied to us about Saddam and his ties to bin laden remember that?

How is military intervening going to help? by just dropping bombs onto civilian populated areas?

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

How is military intervening going to help? by just dropping bombs onto civilian populated areas?

I have made it pretty clear throughout that I do not support a foreign military intervention in the country outside of a UN force Chapter 7.

Do I know it is all propaganda? I feel I know some is and from all the sides involved. I just want to see the violence stopped. It is destabilising the whole region.