Syria says it's ready for talks with armed rebels

Syria says it's ready for talks with armed rebels

MOSCOW (AP) — Syria is ready to hold talks with the armed opposition trying to topple President Bashar Assad, the country's foreign minister said Monday, in the government's most advanced offer yet to try to resolve the 2-year-old civil war through negotiations.

Walid al-Moallem did not say whether rebel fighters would first have to lay down their arms before negotiations could begin, a key sticking point in the past. Still, the proposal marked the first time that a high-ranking Syrian official has stated publicly that the government would meet with opposition fighters.

"We're ready for a dialogue with anyone who's willing for it," al-Moallem said in Moscow ahead of talks with his Russian counterpart, "even with those who carry arms. We are confident that reforms will come about not with the help of bloodshed but through dialogue."

I've been away from posting in this particular forum for over a year. I thought I'd pop in and toss out a story. Now, they say they are ready to 'Talk' how much credibility do these meetings really have? I question whether they are sincere. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the present situation come to a peaceful conclusion.


I just question how much of this is just showboating for the world's press?

Thought?

I'm with you in my doubts and very skeptical optimism. At the same time, optimism it is and any motion brings with it some hope, right? I'm reminded of many a moment, looking at a pool table with absolutely nothing worth taking a shot for but the other guy's balls. "Hope in motion" is what I'd always say to myself as I made a wild, full force shot down the table to break everything up a bit with the cue ball. Just hope in motion. Once in a great awhile, I sank a ball that way too.

Maybe they will as well. We can hope, right?

My only concern, which I am sure some may share, is the willingness of the rebels to actually “talk” now that they have Assad’s regime backed into a corner. Further to this, we should also consider the impact the U.S. influence has had over this entire situation and perhaps they simply wont want this rebels to talk, but win out right.

This is speculation of course, but the U.S. has certainly poured in a substantial amount of resources for a draw as it were.

I think the regime is worried about this possibility as well, which is why they are involving the Russians so much and probably scheduling the talks at a Russian location. It would only make sense to do this as Russia has been Assad’s main proponent, but not only this, Russia would be keenly interested in preventing any further US influence over the proceedings if it was to occur.

None the less, great to see the hope of violence and bloodshed ending.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I'm sill trying to find the good guy, the "white hat" in all of this. If they stop fighting, then I would consider it a good thing. But both sides are culpable in all of this, ergo, I will root only for the poor innocent lives who got caught in the middle.

reply to post by beezzer

I'm sill trying to find the good guy, the "white hat" in all of this.

I would say that is a very difficult task indeed. I dont think we could come to any agreeable conclusion on who could be defined as the "good guys", as both parties would have difficulty in fitting into a definition of "Good".

If you had to try and put a label like that on these groups, I would suggest looking at the actions of each side as a possible method to the answer. However the idea of doing that makes my stomach turn as basically it turns into a evil deed counting game, which both sides are guilty of in my opinion..

Well, that sounds like total propaganda to me, particularly this part:

Syria's rebels have scored several tactical victories in recent weeks, capturing the nation's largest hydroelectric dam and overtaking airbases in the northeast. In Damascus, they have advanced from their strongholds in the suburbs into neighborhoods in the northeast and southern rim of the capital, while peppering the center of the city with mortar rounds for days.

The dam was months ago, and they didn't hold it for long. From what I've been reading and hearing, it's the complete opposite. Things are very grim for NATO's mercenaries, oops, the FSA.

Honestly, for the last few years I usually take what the MSM and politicians say, assume the opposite, go from there and see what other sources of info I can find.


Here are a few blogs I follow:

syrianperspective.blogspot.gr...

pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca...

syria360.wordpress.com...

www.globalresearch.ca...

www.landdestroyer.blogspot.ca...

www.voltairenet.org...


As the blogger SyrianPerspective says (paraphrase) : "When the propaganda index is high, you can be sure things are not going well for the FSA"

reply to post by beezzer




I hear ya.

I mean all sides have so much blood on their hands it's almost impossible to know who really are the good guys and who are the ones we should watch out for in the future. Will they be part of any New Government? If so who will be backing them?

Tehran, Washington or Moscow?


That's if this even get's that far.

This is an interesting article as well:

"What the Syrian death tolls really tell us - Unreliable data can incite and escalate a conflict – the latest UN-sponsored figure of 60,000 should not be reported as fact" Friday 15 February 2013

www.guardian.co.uk...

Casualty counts during modern wars have become a highly politicised business. On one hand, they can help alert the outside world to the scale of violence and suffering, and the risks of conflict spreading both within a country's borders and beyond them. On the other, as in Syria, Iraq, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo and elsewhere, death tolls have routinely been manipulated, inflated or downplayed – a tool for the advancement of political interests.

As if to underline the point, Libya's new government recently announced that death tolls had been exaggerated during the 2011 Libyan civil war; that there had been around 5,000 deaths on either side – a long way from the reported tens of thousands of casualties that set the scene for Nato's "humanitarian" intervention, or the 30-50,000 deaths claimed by opponents of this intervention.

While physically present in Iraq, the US and British governments were unable to provide estimates of the numbers of deaths unleashed by their own invasion, yet in Syria, the same governments frequently quote detailed figures, despite lacking essential access.

And, the source that almost all MSM uses is the SOHR, which is this guy:

"West's Syrian Narrative Based on "Guy in British Apartment" -
Opposition propagandist in England apartment is, and has been, the sole source cited by the Western press"
Tony Cartalucci June 4, 2012

landdestroyer.blogspot.fr...

Clearly for real journalists, Abdulrahman is a useless, utterly compromised source of information who has every reason to twist reality to suit his admittedly politically-motivated agenda of overthrowing the Syrian government. However, for a propagandist, he is a goldmine. That is why despite the overt conflict of interests, the lack of credibility, the obvious disadvantage of being nearly 3,000 miles away from the alleged subject of his "observations," or the fact that a single man is ludicrously calling himself a "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" in the first place, the Western media still eagerly laps up his constant torrent of disinformation.


And when the Western press cites such a dubious, compromised character, it means that the actual evidence inevitably trickling out of Syria contradicts entirely the West's desired narrative, so profoundly in fact, that they must contrive the summation of their "evidence" from whole cloth with "tailors" like Abdelrahman. And while the general public should indeed be angry over being deceived on such a vast scale, they should be utterly outraged that the establishment thinks they are so stupid - they'd believe any evidence coming from an opposition activist, disingenuously masquerading as a reputable organization, telling us all what is happening in Syria via "phone-calls" received in his plush apartment in England.

I think this may just be to draw the Rebel leadership out into the open so that they can be targeted and surveyed until an untimely death on an empty street.

Here's another thing worth watching - a Belgian MP telling some ugly truths:



Here is a site with a transcript. There is english captions on the vid, but you have to watch it on yt to access that.

"The Greatest Speech by a Western Statesman This Century?" Jan 27, 2013
kennysideshow.blogspot.ca...

And as you can see, for months, our country is only participating to put in place, Islamic regimes in North Africa and the Middle East. So, when they come and pretend to go to war in order to fight against terrorism in Mali, well… I feel like laughing. It’s false!

Under the appearance of good actions, we only intervene to defend financial interests in a complete neo-colonialist agenda. It makes no sense to go to help France in Mali in the name of the fight against Islamic terrorism when - at the same time – we support the overthrow of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad by Islamist rebels who want to impose Sharia Law, as was done in Tunisia and in Libya.

It is about time to stop lying to us and treating people like imbeciles.

The time has come to tell the truth. Arming the Islamist Rebels, as Westerners have, in the past armed Bin Laden, that friend of the Americans before they turned against him, well, the western countries are taking the opportunity to place military bases in the newly conquered countries while favoring domestic companies.

Everything is therefore strategic. In Iraq, our American allies have put their hands on the country’s oil wealth. In Afghanistan, it was its opium and drugs always useful when it comes to make lots of money pretty quickly. In Libya, in Tunisia, in Egypt, or then again in Syria, the aim was – and is still today, to overthrow moderate powers, to replace them with Islamist powers who very quickly will become troublesome and who we will shamelessly attack pretending once again, to fight terrorism or protect Israel.

reply to post by MDDoxs

Originally posted by MDDoxs


If you had to try and put a label like that on these groups, I would suggest looking at the actions of each side as a possible method to the answer. However the idea of doing that makes my stomach turn as basically it turns into a evil deed counting game, which both sides are guilty of in my opinion..

Since there is no unbiased press reporting this, the only thing I can go on is the 1st person accounts of the refugees. And they place the blame everywhere.

Anyway, sorry if you feel I'm derailing your thread. You said you haven't been keeping up, so I posted a few things to give you a bit of a heads up, for what it's worth.

Of course, this is the info I find most credible, other people seem to find the MSM credible.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Will they be part of any New Government? If so who will be backing them?

Tehran, Washington or Moscow?

That should be the focus. Follow the money. Who benefits? You find that answer and we can perhaps see who is backing Assad and who is backing the rebels.

And why.

reply to post by curiouscanadian777


No..


I didn't say I haven't been "keeping up"

I read about it daily.
I just haven't been posting in this forum because about a year or so ago it became too biased by those who have had agendas.

And, speaking of money, beyond the usual reasons these things are happening, there is massive natural gas reserves over that whole area; in the millions and billions of cubic feet, and oil as well. Soooo, there's that...

I don't have any articles on it, but it is called the Leviathan field if anyone wants to look it up.

reply to post by beezzer

And they place the blame everywhere.

That would be the smart thing to do.

I will also agree that the media has certainly convoluted the issue. Did unbiased reporting ever exist? You watch CNN/FOX Vs. RT covering stories developing in Syria and they are a stark contrast to one another.

I think the Begian MP speaks and makes the most sense of any of it.

These things are not happening by accident. The US/NATO is not just blundering around - "oops, now the Islamists are in power and Oh No! Things are actually worse for the people now; sure didn't see that coming..."

No...this is all an intended agenda, that much I'm sure of.

Talk is what you do when your losing or your about to lul the enemy in to a false sense of security right before you destroy them.

Now if the Assad regime is brutal as they say the latter would come to pass, but I am going to showboating to the international community to garner "sympathy" to the Assad regime as "he tried to make peace".

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by beezzer

 

I hear ya.

I mean all sides have so much blood on their hands it's almost impossible to know who really are the good guys and who are the ones we should watch out for in the future. Will they be part of any New Government? If so who will be backing them?

Tehran, Washington or Moscow?


That's if this even get's that far.

I believe beezzer was on the mark with his comment about there not being any "white hats" in this fracas. Many people are choosing sides based on reputation alone, in a stunning display of partisan politics. I've talked to Muslims who are all out for Assad, and westerners who are all out for the "rebels", which mystifies me. It's as if the westerners don't understand that "the rebels" are the Muslim Brotherhood - a faction of the folks we are at war AGAINST, and who will EAT US given the chance. They are just another branch of the Wahabbist tree. It mystifies me to see people clamoring to give them that chance.

In all honesty, Assad hasn't peeped at anyone at all outside his own borders for years... he didn't even squawk when the US went to war right across the border from him, which one would think had to be worrisome, what with the US proclivity to splash things across borders on a regular basis. Nary a peep out of him over it.

The Muslim Brotherhood, on the other hand, is hell bent on conquest, and seems to be making hay (and headway) while the sun is shining on them. Let's tick off recent conquests by the MB - Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, now Syria. They are very clearly - to me anyhow - expansionist. It appears to me that the intent is to create an MB "crescent" to use as a seed for building a new Caliphate... and here we are, supporting them in that (con)quest. It boggles my mind. Muslims are aware of this, and it shakes many of them to their very core. They don't want that sort of outcome any more than I do.

So, while there are no "white hats" in the situation, Assad seems to be the less expansionist, less dangerous option for support, yet people here are clamoring for his ouster and another Muslim Brotherhood victory. I. Am. Mystified.

As far as talks go, beware. Neither side is really interested in sharing power - they both want to just position themselves for the ultimate victory over the other. It's really pretty hard to find a live and let live attitude flourishing in the environment there. It's all just posturing for supremacy, the aftermath of which will be a purge (see Egypt).

reply to post by nenothtu


I don't think there are any real "White hats" out of the whole bunch
I think all sides stink to high heaven.

Spits....