|Posted on August 31, 2016 at 10:25 AM||comments (6)|
I just read an NBC interview with President Assad.
He keeps saying whether he remains President of Syria depends on the wishes of the Syrian people AND not the interests of the U.S. government which he believes has no true set of policies, but rather appears bent on chaos in the Middle East.
Hillary is doing Israel's bidding and Assad is willing to fight to get all those terrorists out of Syria and defeated.
He says Russia's interests are to defeat ISIS, Al Qaida, Al Nusra, et al before they attack Russia.
But he believes the U.S. should be fighting ISIS much more effectively than it is now.
The U.S. has, as we know, hired mercenaries to fight Assad, with financing from Qatar and Saudi Arabia (we knew this but it’s rarely reported in the U. S. media).
It seems to me that Assad should not be "removing" our president and conversely, the U.S. (Obama/Hillary) have no business removing the president of a sovereign nation, Syria - as we did in Libya, Egypt, Iraq.
He intends to defeat ISIS, et al with Russia's help, but welcomes the U.S. in that fight.
|Posted on August 28, 2016 at 10:20 AM||comments (1)|
Propaganda for Syrian ‘Regime Change’ – Consortium News
Those damned Neo cons are at it again. see this link - https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/23/propaganda-for-syrian-regime-change/
They (Israel) want regime change, "nation rebuilding", in Libya, Egypt, Syria and Iran.
Bush followed their urging and destroyed Iraq! Now they want Obama and maybe Hillary (if elected) to attack Syria (which means fighting Russia and Iran).
WHY SHOULD WE CREATE ANOTHER WAR AND KILL EVEN MORE INNOCENTS?
WHY WOULD WE ATTACK ASSAD, THE ALLY OF RUSSIA AND IRAN?
IT MAKES THE U.S. THE BULLY OF THE MIDDLE EAST.
ASK YOURSELF - WHO WOULD GAIN?
The U.S. already destroyed Iraq,
Essentially allowing ISIS and Al Qaida to flourish and use the arms we left,
Allowing ISIS in Syria and to destroy Syria causing millions of innocents to flee Resulting in all of Europe having to accept millions of refugees,
Causing England to exit the EU, and
Finally causing the killing of nearly 400,000 innocent men, women and children.
FOR WHAT? To make the right wing Israeli government to feel safer?
Even spending $tens of billions every year, what are we doing?
What we are doing is so counter to the principles of the United States!!!
REMEMBER PRESIDENT EISENHOWER'S FINAL SPEECH "BEWARE OF THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX" AND PRESIDENT WASHINGTON'S WARNING "BEWARE OF UNHOLY ALLIANCES" - Are we not listening?
Write our congressmen/women now!
|Posted on January 23, 2015 at 8:40 AM||comments (1)|
New York Times
U.S. Signals Shift on How to End Syrian Civil War
By ANNE BARNARD and SOMINI SENGUPTA JAN. 19, 2015
BEIRUT, Lebanon — American support for a pair of diplomatic initiatives in Syria underscores the shifting views of how to end the civil war there and the West’s quiet retreat from its demand that the country’s president, Bashar al-Assad, step down immediately.
The Obama administration maintains that a lasting political solution requires Mr. Assad’s exit. But facing military stalemate, well-armed jihadists and the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, the United States is going along with international diplomatic efforts that could lead to more gradual change in Syria.
That shift comes along with other American actions that Mr. Assad’s supporters and opponents take as proof Washington now believes that if Mr. Assad is ousted, there will be nothing to check the spreading chaos and extremism. American planes now bomb the Islamic State group’s militants in Syria, sharing skies with Syrian jets. American officials assure Mr. Assad, through Iraqi intermediaries, that Syria’s military is not their target. The United States still trains and equips Syrian insurgents, but now mainly to fight the Islamic State, not the government.
Now, the United States and other Western countries have publicly welcomed initiatives — one from the United Nations and one from Russia — that postpone any revival of the United States-backed Geneva framework, which called for a wholesale transfer of power to a “transitional governing body.” The last Geneva talks failed a year ago amid vehement disagreement over whether that body could include Mr. Assad.
One of the new concepts is a United Nations proposal to “freeze” the fighting on the ground, first in the strategic crossroads city of Aleppo. The other is an initiative from Russia, Mr. Assad’s most powerful supporter, to try to spur talks between the warring sides in Moscow in late January. Diplomats and others briefed on the plans say one Russian vision is of power-sharing between Mr. Assad’s government and some opposition figures, and perhaps parliamentary elections that would precede any change in the presidency.
But the diplomatic proposals face serious challenges, relying on the leader of a rump state who is propped up by foreign powers and hemmed in by a growing and effective extremist force that wants to build a caliphate. Many of America’s allies in the Syrian opposition reject the plans, and there is little indication that Mr. Assad or his main allies, Russia and Iran, feel any need to compromise. The American-backed Free Syrian Army is on the ropes in northern Syria, once its stronghold, and insurgents disagree among themselves over military and political strategy.
And perhaps most of all, the Islamic State controls half of Syria’s territory, though mostly desert, and it has managed to strengthen its grip even as the United States and its allies try to oust it from neighboring Iraq.
Still, Secretary of State John Kerry declared last week that the United States welcomed both initiatives. He made no call for Mr. Assad’s resignation, a notable omission for Mr. Kerry, who has typically insisted on it in public remarks. Instead, he spoke of Mr. Assad as a leader who needed to change his policies.
“It is time for President Assad, the Assad regime, to put their people first and to think about the consequences of their actions, which are attracting more and more terrorists to Syria, basically because of their efforts to remove Assad,” Mr. Kerry said.
On Thursday in Geneva, Staffan de Mistura, the United Nations envoy for the crisis in Syria, also signaled a tactical shift, saying that “new factors” such as the growth of the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL, must be taken into account. He said there was no point in trying to organize a third round of Geneva talks before building unambiguous support from both the Syrian government and its opponents for some kind of “Syrian political process.”
The urgent search for a political solution, Mr. de Mistura said, must “bear in mind” not only the Geneva framework, “but also the need to adjust aspirations without preconditions, in line with the new factors which have come up in the reality of the area, such as ISIS.”
The shifts reflect a longstanding view among United Nations officials in Syria that the West must adapt to the reality that Syrian insurgents have failed to defeat Mr. Assad. Syrians on both sides have said frequently in interviews that they fear the growing influence of foreign militants, and while they mistrust all international players that have financed warring parties, they are willing to explore compromise with other Syrians.
Western diplomats who had long called for Mr. Assad’s immediate resignation say now that while he must not indefinitely control crucial institutions like the military, a more gradual transition may be worth considering.
One Western diplomat at the United Nations said that while a “post-Assad phase” must eventually come, “the exact timing of that, we can discuss,” as long as the solution does not “cement his position in power.”
Western leaders now openly talk about a deal allowing some current officials to remain to prevent Syria from disintegrating, like Iraq and Libya.
“The political solution will of course include some elements of the regime because we don’t want to see the pillars of the state fall apart. We would end up with a situation like Iraq,” the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, told a French radio station last Monday.
At the same time, such statements have further alienated Washington from ordinary anti-Assad Syrians and rank-and-file insurgents, reinforcing the idea that the West has decided to tolerate Mr. Assad.
The view that the United States supports Mr. Assad is spreading even among the groups receiving direct American financing, groups deemed moderate enough to receive arms and work with a United States-run operations center in Turkey. A fighter with Harakat Hazm, one such group, said Wednesday that America was “looking for loopholes to reach a political solution and keep al-Assad.”
Tarek Fares, a secular Syrian Army defector who long fought with the loose-knit nationalist groups known as the Free Syrian Army but who has lately quit fighting, joked bitterly about American policy one recent night in Antakya, Turkey. “This is how the Americans talk,” he said. “They say, ‘We have a red line, we will support you, we will arm you.’ They do nothing, and then after four years they tell you Assad is the best option.”
The United Nations freeze proposal tries to improve on efforts over the last 18 months inside Syria, where the government and insurgents have reached local cease-fire deals to restore basic services and aid delivery — most recently on Thursday in the Waer neighborhood of the city of Homs.
But those cease-fires have never had the imprimatur of international bodies, and they often collapse. With a few exceptions they have amounted to insurgents’ surrender to a government strategy of siege and starvation.
Juliette Touma, a spokeswoman for Mr. de Mistura, said that his plan would not resemble the past cease-fires, and that the United Nations, not the Syrian government, would be the guarantor. Yet even the modest Aleppo proposal is on shaky ground. While Mr. Assad has said he will consider it, his government has not signed off on the plan; Mr. de Mistura’s deputy arrived Sunday in Damascus for consultations.
The Moscow talks are arguably in worse shape. While Mr. Kerry said he hoped the talks “could be helpful,” several crucial opposition groups have refused to attend and say the United States has not pressured them to go.
That leaves American policy ambiguous, offering only modest verbal support to the new mediation efforts while continuing to finance some Syrian insurgents, yet not enough to seriously threaten Mr. Assad. Even a new program to train them to fight ISIS will not field fighters until May.
Critics argue that Washington is simply trying to disengage and offload the Syria problem to Mr. Assad’s allies, Russia and Iran, even at the cost of empowering them.
Still, any attempt to bring the parties to the table should be considered constructive, another Western diplomat said. “You can’t say to the Russians, ‘Go to hell.’ ”
Anne Barnard reported from Beirut, and Somini Sengupta from the United Nations. Reporting was contributed by Nick Cumming-Bruce and Michael R. Gordon from Geneva, and Ben Hubbard and Hwaida Saad from Beirut.
|Posted on September 10, 2014 at 9:35 PM||comments (3)|
Posted on September 10, 2014 at 9:25 PM
As the U.S. government forms and activates a unifies attack on ISIL, the plan is easier in Iraq because we are in concert with the Kurds and the still weak and non inclusive Iraqi government.
In Iraq the new Shiite controlled government still has not included Sunni members, so some in ISIL will continue to posoiit that the government remains an adversary since most ISIL fighters are Sunni, rebelling for inclusion. Sunnis are in the minority in Iraq, but are the majority (65% plus in Syria, which could mean there are thousands of young Sunni males who demand inclusion in Syria's government, thus, providing potential recruits into ISIL.
The conundrum for the U.S. is that without the existing government's approval allowing attacks on their homeland, the U.S. could be charged with invading a sovereign state.
Actually, attacking ISIL in Syria would be far more successful with government assistance and cooperation on the ground instead of arming the small "Moderate" Opposition?
What are the real reasons Obama and the Congress want Assad out? Is it because we've deemed him a dictator? (consider Russia, China, Cuba, N .Korea, Venezuela and several more: Are we not attacking them.
It just doesn't make sense. Is Syria's government a threat to the U.S. and the American people? There is no evidence Syria has ever been a threat to the U.S., but ISIL is considered an existential threat to the entire Middle East. So, should not the U.S. work with the existing Syrian government if that is by far the most efficient means to defeat ISIL? Our best long term interests would be, many believe, is to ally with Assad to defeat ISIL in exchange for Assad to include Sunnis in his government.
Assad, like Saddam Hussein in Iraq governs a secular state where all minorities, women are free as equals.
We destroyed Iraq for false reasons and now we appear ready to do the same in Syria.
Alexander A Simon Jr
|Posted on September 8, 2014 at 10:30 AM||comments (0)|
We thank this Senator for his support and action - Sandy Simon.
Sen. Nelson plans bill to approve air strikes in Syria
U.S. Senator Bill Nelson is planning to introduce legislation authorizing U.S. air strikes against the Islamic State in Syria, in a bid to ensure President Obama is not waiting on Congress to escalate the military campaign.
When Congress returns next week, Sen. Nelson says he plans to introduce a bill to "ensure there's no question that the president has the legal authority he needs to use air strikes in Syria."
|Posted on August 29, 2014 at 8:30 AM||comments (0)|
Update directly from Damascus Aug 28 2014
I just spoke with a news woman named Maha in Damascus who asked what impact a 5 minute movie now available on the SAF (Syrian American Forum) web site entitled " I WILL LIVE ON." will have the American public. It is a professionally made film with statements of beautiful Syrian children who are shown running from bombs sent to their school and homes by the militants, mostly Islamic State militants who seek to destroy the Syrian culture, its antiquities and its secular society and turn it into an Islamist state. These children want to live. They will live because their fate depends on the good will of the American people to help rid Syria of these cruel Jihadists who present an existential threat to all the Middle East and to the civilized world.
We urge every American to go to the SAF web site: Syrian American Forum.org and spend just a few moments viewing this excellent, tastefully done movie.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: CONTACT
"Sandy" Simon, Chairman, SAF FL Chapter, Member National Policy Committee.
Cell Phone Number: 561-7890928, e mail: [email protected]
|Posted on August 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM||comments (0)|
"My heart is bleeding for the innocent Christians in Syria and Iraq. Misguided extremist Islamists are raping women, taking girls for themselves, boys and men are cut in half or decapitated. Where is the outrage from our President, our Senators or our Representatives?
Are we going to stay silent in America as we did during the Nazi genocide of Jews?
What happened to "NEVER AGAIN"? What ever happened to the principles of the United States?
Are IS, ISIS, ISIL, AL QUAEDA, AL NOUSRA BRIGADE going to be allowed to kill all Christians across the Middle East or is the U.S. going to stand by it's principles and spread Liberty and Human Rights?
Even the U.S media, for 30 days broadcast Israel - Palestinian fighting, never informing Americans of the genocide by the extremists, misguided Islamists who have been fighting in Syria for two years killing moderates, all minorities. ISIS, ISIL it must be stopped now!
Pin prick strikes are not going to help. They must be attacked and defeated. Many believe the U.S. should support President Assad. While his regime is despotic, it protects the minorities in a nation of 80% Sunni. He recently won reelection with 80% of the voters, mostly Sunni who prefer a secular nation where all are equal, where women enjoy equality and government protection. In fact, until the Cheney-Bush regime invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein did the same.
The U.S. destroyed Iraq, lost thousands of lives, left tens of thousands maimed. For what? Why? Assad is no threat to America. Why are we opposed to him as we were with Hussein? Many say it is because the Israel's government want them out.
Assad is supported by Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church, because the Syrian Christians are mostly Antiochan Orthodox.
In Syria, under Assad, the significant majority Sunni, population is satisfied with Assad. They have co-existed with the minorities: Christians, Jews, Druze and Alawites (a branch of Shiite) for centuries.
Who are we to tell them their elected President must go?
What should we do? It is past time when we demand our politicians do the right thing.
First attack and defeat IS/ ISIS, et Al, support Assad and the innocent minorities in Syria and Iraq. If we don't Lebanon could be next, then Jordan. Israel would then be surrounded by extremists.
Second for Israel's best long term benefit, bring Israel to accept a Palestinian state (like the rest of the world). If they would, Gaza/ Hamas would at the same time recognize Israel.
It is time we adhere to our founding principles."