Secret 2006 US Gov't Document Reveals Plan To Destabilize Syria Using Extremists, Muslim Brotherhood, Elections

Authored by Brandon Turbeville via ActivistPost.com,

As the Syrian government makes massive gains across the country, many are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel for the Western destabilization and attempt to destroy the secular government of Syria by the United States and the West. However, it must be remembered that the goal to impose hegemony across the world by the Anglo-financier system is not some fly-by-night venture that cropped up in 2011 to be easily abandoned in 2018. Indeed, the plan to destroy Syria has spanned nearly four decades, only moving into high gear in 2011 under the Obama administration.

While the destabilization initiative did begin in earnest under Obama’s watch, the truth is that previous administration were also heavily involved in the planning of Syria’s destruction.

For instance, in 2006, TIME revealed a leaked two-page document circulating amongst key figures in the Bush administration that openly stated that the U.S. was “supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists” in Europe. The document made no bones about expressing hope that “these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists.”

The document also stated, according to TIME, that Syria’s legislative elections which were going to take place in March of 2007, “provide a potentially galvanizing issue for... critics of the Assad regime.” The document expressed an open desire to take advantage of that opportunity by suggesting an “election monitoring” plan where “internet accessible materials will be available for printing and dissemination by activists inside the country [Syria] and neighboring countries.”

The document also advocates for providing money to at least one Syrian politician who was allegedly intending to run in the election against Bashar al-Assad. The document also called for the funding of and implementation of “voter education campaigns” and “public opinion polling,” the first being “tentatively scheduled in early 2007.”

As TIME reported in December 2006 in the articleSyria In Bush’s Cross Hairs,

American officials say the U.S. government has had extensive contacts with a range of anti-Assad groups in Washington, Europe and inside Syria. To give momentum to that opposition, the U.S. is giving serious consideration to the election-monitoring scheme proposed in the document, according to several officials. The proposal has not yet been approved, in part because of questions over whether the Syrian elections will be delayed or even cancelled. But one U.S. official familiar with the proposal said: “You are forced to wonder whether we are now trying to destabilize the Syrian government.”

Some critics in Congress and the Administration say that such a plan, meant to secretly influence a foreign government, should be legally deemed a “covert action,” which by law would then require that the White House inform the intelligence committees on Capitol Hill. Some in Congress would undoubtedly raise objections to this secret use of publicly appropriated funds to promote democracy.

The fact that “critics in Congress and the administration” believed that the plan should be labeled a “covert action” means clearly that the plan was kept from members of Congress legally obligated to be informed of the plan. That doesn’t mean that certain members of Congress or all members of the “intelligence committees” were not aware of the plan but that these individuals were simply never officially informed of the plan’s existence.

Nevertheless, TIME reports that the document advanced a proposal to fund the destabilization efforts through the National Salvation Front and, of course, the Muslim Brotherhood. TIME reported,

The proposal says part of the effort would be run through a foundation operated by Amar Abdulhamid, a Washington-based member of a Syrian umbrella opposition group known as the National Salvation Front (NSF). The Front includes the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization that for decades supported the violent overthrow of the Syrian government, but now says it seeks peaceful, democratic reform. (In Syria, however, membership in the Brotherhood is still punishable by death.) Another member of the NSF is Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former high-ranking Syrian official and Assad family loyalist who recently went into exile after a political clash with the regime. Representatives of the National Salvation Front, including Abdulhamid, were accorded at least two meetings earlier this year at the White House, which described the sessions as exploratory. Since then, the National Salvation Front has said it intends to open an office in Washington in the near future.

“Democracy promotion” has been a focus of both Democratic and Republican administrations, but the Bush White House has been a particular booster since 9/11. Iran contra figure Elliott Abrams was put in charge of the effort at the National Security Council. Until recently, Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of the Vice President, oversaw such work at the State Department. In the past, the U.S. has used support for “democracy building” to topple unfriendly dictators, including Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic and Ukraine’s [Leonid] Kuchma.

The plan to make “election monitoring” work to America’s benefit, the document states clearly that the plan to do so would have to be kept secret. It says, according to TIME, that “Any information regarding funding for domestic [Syrian] politicians for elections monitoring would have to be protected from public dissemination.”

TIME adds,

But American experts on “democracy promotion” consulted by TIME say it would be unwise to give financial support to a specific candidate in the election, because of the perceived conflict of interest. More ominously, an official familiar with the document explained that secrecy is necessary in part because Syria’s government might retaliate against anyone inside the country who was seen as supporting the U.S.-backed election effort. The official added that because the Syrian government fields a broad network of internal spies, it would almost certainly find out about the U.S. effort, if it hasn’t already. That could lead to the imprisonment of still more opposition figures.

Any American-orchestrated attempt to conduct such an election-monitoring effort could make a dialogue between Washington and Damascus — as proposed by the Iraq Study Group and several U.S. allies — difficult or impossible. The entire proposal could also be a waste of effort; Edward P. Djerejian, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria who worked on the Iraq Study Group report, says that Syria’s opposition is so fractured and weak that there is little to be gained by such a venture. “To fund opposition parties on the margins is a distraction at best,” he told TIME. “It will only impede the better option of engaging Syria on much more important, fundamental issues like Iraq, peace with Israel, and the dangerous situation in Lebanon.”

Others detect another goal for the proposed policy. “Ever since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which Syria opposed, the Bush Administration has been looking for ways to squeeze the government in Damascus,” notes Joshua Landis, a Syria expert who is co-director of the Center for Peace Studies at the University of Oklahoma. “Syria has appeared to be next on the Administration’s agenda to reform the greater Middle East.” Landis adds: “This is apparently an effort to gin up the Syrian opposition under the rubric of ‘democracy promotion’ and ‘election monitoring,’ but it’s really just an attempt to pressure the Syrian government” into doing what the U.S. wants. That would include blocking Syria’s border with Iraq so insurgents do not cross into Iraq to kill U.S. troops; ending funding of Hizballah and interference in Lebanese politics; and cooperating with the U.N. in the investigation of the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Senior Syrian government officials are considered prime suspects in Hariri case.

According to the document, money for the “election-monitoring” proposal would be channeled through the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), a State Department program. TIME wrote,

According to MEPI’s website, the program passes out funds ranging between $100,000 and $1 million to promote education and women’s empowerment, as well as economic and political reform, part of a total allocation of $5 million for Syria that Congress supported earlier this year.

MEPI helps funnel millions of dollars every year to groups around the Middle East intent on promoting reforms. In the vast majority of cases, beneficiaries are publicly identified, as financial support is distributed through channels including the National Democratic Institute, a non-profit affiliated with the Democratic Party, and the International Republican Institute (IRI), which is linked to the G.O.P. In the Syrian case, the election-monitoring proposal identifies IRI as a “partner” — although the IRI website, replete with information about its democracy promotion elsewhere in the world, does not mention Syria. A spokesperson for IRI had no comment on what the organization might have planned or under way in Syria, describing the subject as “sensitive.”

U.S. foreign policy experts familiar with the proposal say it was developed by a “democracy and public diplomacy” working group that meets weekly at the State department to discuss Iran and Syria. Along with related working groups, it prepares proposals for the higher-level Iran Syria Operations Group, or ISOG, an inter-agency body that, several officials said, has had input from Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, deputy National Security Council advisor Elliott Abrams and representatives from the Pentagon, Treasury and U.S. intelligence. The State Department’s deputy spokesman, Thomas Casey, said the election-monitoring proposal had already been through several classified drafts, but that “the basic concept is very much still valid.”

A plan to destabilize Syria by means of funding political “opposition” as well as physical “opposition” in the form of Sunni Wahhabists and the Muslim Brotherhood is incredibly familiar. And it should be.

As journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in his article, “The Redirection,” in 2007,

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

“Extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam” who are “hostile to America and sympathetic to al-Qaeda” are the definition of the so-called “rebels” turned loose on Syria in 2011. Likewise, the fact that both Iran and Hezbollah, who are natural enemies of al-Qaeda and such radical Sunni groups, are involved in the battle against ISIS and other related terrorist organizations in Syria proves the accuracy of the article on another level.

Hersh also wrote,

The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”

Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said...

This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”...

Fourth, the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations. Syria is a major conduit of arms to Hezbollah...

In January, after an outburst of street violence in Beirut involving supporters of both the Siniora government and Hezbollah, Prince Bandar flew to Tehran to discuss the political impasse in Lebanon and to meet with Ali Larijani, the Iranians’ negotiator on nuclear issues. According to a Middle Eastern ambassador, Bandar’s mission—which the ambassador said was endorsed by the White House—also aimed “to create problems between the Iranians and Syria.” There had been tensions between the two countries about Syrian talks with Israel, and the Saudis’ goal was to encourage a breach. However, the ambassador said, “It did not work. Syria and Iran are not going to betray each other. Bandar’s approach is very unlikely to succeed.”...

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, a branch of a radical Sunni movement founded in Egypt in 1928, engaged in more than a decade of violent opposition to the regime of Hafez Assad, Bashir’s father. In 1982, the Brotherhood took control of the city of Hama; Assad bombarded the city for a week, killing between six thousand and twenty thousand people. Membership in the Brotherhood is punishable by death in Syria. The Brotherhood is also an avowed enemy of the U.S. and of Israel. Nevertheless, Jumblatt said, “We told Cheney that the basic link between Iran and Lebanon is Syria—and to weaken Iran you need to open the door to effective Syrian opposition.”...

There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.

Hersh also spoke with Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Shi’ite Lebanese militia, Hezbollah. In relation to the Western strategy against Syria, he reported,

Nasrallah said he believed that America also wanted to bring about the partition of Lebanon and of Syria. In Syria, he said, the result would be to push the country “into chaos and internal battles like in Iraq.” In Lebanon, “There will be a Sunni state, an Alawi state, a Christian state, and a Druze state.” But, he said, “I do not know if there will be a Shiite state.” Nasrallah told me that he suspected that one aim of the Israeli bombing of Lebanon last summer was “the destruction of Shiite areas and the displacement of Shiites from Lebanon. The idea was to have the Shiites of Lebanon and Syria flee to southern Iraq,” which is dominated by Shiites. “I am not sure, but I smell this,” he told me.

Partition would leave Israel surrounded by “small tranquil states,” he said. “I can assure you that the Saudi kingdom will also be divided, and the issue will reach to North African states. There will be small ethnic and confessional states,” he said. “In other words, Israel will be the most important and the strongest state in a region that has been partitioned into ethnic and confessional states that are in agreement with each other. This is the new Middle East.”

The trail of documentation and the manner in which the overarching agenda of world hegemony on the behalf of corporate-financier interests have continued apace regardless of party and seamlessly through Republican and Democrat administrations serves to prove that changing parties and personalities do nothing to stop the onslaught of imperialism, war, and destruction being waged across the world today and in earnest ever since 2001. Indeed, such changes only make adjustments to the appearance and presentation of a much larger Communo-Fascist system that is entrenching itself by the day, particularly in the Western world.

Tags

Comments

Chris2 hxc Tue, 07/10/2018 - 00:18 Permalink

Bush, Clinton, Obama one big happy crime family.

This is what Trump is trying to take down and it ain't easy.

They have the permanent government in the military, doj, state dept, media all over the place.

Look what they are doing to Jim Jordan now. They are trying to drive all of Trumps cabinet out, and they have us voters in the sights. We are going to have to fight them if you stay in this country, I hope you know.

In reply to by hxc

oliviaemma705 stant Tue, 07/10/2018 - 02:20 Permalink

 

Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.On tuesday I got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it's the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it

HERE► ● ⤁⤁⤁ Visit Website====http://www.todaysfox.com

In reply to by stant

IvannaHumpalot hxc Tue, 07/10/2018 - 04:12 Permalink

syria was secular, assad looked reasonably modern - why the US is getting rid of all the secular Muslims as they are our ALLIES. It's the religitard theocrats we don't want.

 

OTOH: splitting Lebanon up into 4 separate mini states: christian, alawite, sunni and druze. Good. Got to keep them separated. good if the entire middle east is broken into tiny peaceful religiously homogenous states. They can't get on with each other. they are religitarded.

In reply to by hxc

LaugherNYC Four chan Tue, 07/10/2018 - 00:49 Permalink

Oh fer Chrissake, cut the sanctimony already. Syria has been the core roads of the ME clusterfuck since before there was an Israel - hell, from before there was a United States.

All this long-winded bullshit — as if the US is the only global power intervening in Syria, Iran, Iraq... this has been going on forever. Sure, you can take the side of the clan that controls the voting booths this time around, and pretend this is an “elected” government, like Vlad does in Russia, and claim legitimacy as you lead the locals to slaughter for your geopolitical aims, with the plan to keep them as useless indigent ARab morons while you rape their country, like Russia seeks to do with their puppet, the pathetic little twerp Assad the murderer. Or pick another side, and try to work towards some semblance of freedom that might grow an autonomous culture. But, whatever. Arabs killing Arabs is always a good plan B, as they love doing it and are quite effective.

The US gave it a half-assed shot under Obuttfugg and it’s petering out. Maybe Trumpster has a better plan. Could hardly be worse. 

In reply to by Four chan

mark1955 Chris2 Tue, 07/10/2018 - 01:53 Permalink

Oh Stop it!!!

 

Fraud Trump, is a lifetime registered democrat, who is a Rothschild/Rockefeller PLANT and is just pretending too be "Conservative".

 

Since getting into office, President Donald "Gun Control" Trump, has done nothing but move left off of his campaign promises  and is carrying out Hillary Clinton's ( His Real Best Friend ) Agenda!

 

Also, every single republican politician is as left wing as their democrat counterparts and were put into office to move us left and off of a cliff!

In reply to by Chris2

Fantome hxc Tue, 07/10/2018 - 02:11 Permalink

White west has as much muslim blood on it's hand as the Jews. After the muslim empire receeeded in 1492 the white christian west focused on destroying it all togther. That's what we do when our values are threatened, remember Carthage ? Islam's anti-sexist and anti-capitalistic civilization/conviction is indeed a threat for sexist, capitalistic west. The collaboration with the Jews was for this and this purpose alone and had began in 1660's

No matter how we spin it, doesn't change the fact it's we who are the evil in this conflict. We've done this before during the crusades where the actual reasons for invading the holy land were obscured instead we sold the demonizing stories about Islam. We played that game again and unfortunatelky lost to the bigger liars and manipulators, the Jews. They fooled us in our own game.

In reply to by hxc

Fantome Gardentoolnumber5 Tue, 07/10/2018 - 06:52 Permalink

No, that's what the church told the Europeans in order to validate it's wars against the muslims. We weren't the idiots to rally behind the church in it's expedition for, as you said, aggression, pillage and death against the good, productive people. We needed better reasons.

Today, the exact same shit MSM sells to validate the anglo-zionist aggression against the muslims that the majority of us buy without questioning. What we don't realize is for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Put your trust all you will into military might but be known the righteous moves forward and operessors eventually lose, every single time. If might was the only influencial force to determine the outcome of the conflict, Assyrians would still be ruling the world today.

On point, the Crusades were the answer to the expansion of Islamic empire which directly threatened corruption of the church and shrinking of it's authority. It's also worthy to be noted that every time the war on a civilization is launched, there are financial benifits, always. And with the civilization as enormous as Islamic, benifits were also enormous. Crusades were meant to control the trade routes from east i.e China and south i.e Yeman and west i.e Europe and Maghreb.

Those trade routes and revenues are replaced by oil in today's game. Those who argue western presence in the MENA is for natural resources are blinded to see the real reasons of the conflict. It's the values, sexism and capitalism against Islamic conviction which is anti-capitalistic and anti-sexist.

This you don't know and idiotically think that it's the oil or gassed kiddies that drives us there. Infact it's freedom and democracy.

In reply to by Gardentoolnumber5

BorraChoom Fantome Tue, 07/10/2018 - 09:44 Permalink

There are several forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, the best known being taqiyya (the Shia name).  These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Quran (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.

Quran (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths is with pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.  (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals - see Ibn Kathir vol 4, p 49)

Quran (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths..."

Quran (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Quran (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"

Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.

 

 

In reply to by Fantome

Fantome BorraChoom Tue, 07/10/2018 - 13:49 Permalink

I don't give a fuck what Islam is about. I don't know how muslims are, what I do know is that I'm not the kinda asshole that kills your loved ones, harvest their organs, rape your teenage girls and blame it on you.

About that permission of lying, checked it out. It's when one's life or assets are in jeopardy, they are allowed to lie. Seems resonable to me. I, under such circumstances, would do a hell lot more then just lying.

Also, regardless of what Islam is, I still can't comprehend what validates our crimes against muslims. Or is it just you're trying to deflect the attention from what is being discussed by trying to point out the flaw of the other side thus validating all of our crimes ?

In reply to by BorraChoom

BorraChoom Fantome Tue, 07/10/2018 - 09:51 Permalink

"Warriors of jihad in October 732 marched upon the shrine of St. Martin of Tours in north-central France, a favored site of pilgrims that contained a good deal of silver and gold.

But the Muslims made a disastrous miscalculation, drastically underestimating the strength of the forces that gathered between Tours and Poitiers to stop them. The commander of those forces was a Frankish duke named Charles, who gained the name Martel, “The Hammer,” for his decisive victory there. October 25, 732 was a bitterly cold day, and the Franks routed the jihadis, who had come dressed for a Spanish summer. The jihadis beat a scorched-earth retreat back to al-Andalus, burning and looting everything in sight.

The victory was decisive and all-important. The eighteenth-century English historian Edward Gibbon envisioned the continent’s complete Islamization had the Franks lost at Tours:

A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thou- sand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed with- out a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.

Of course, the teaching of the Qur’an in the schools of Oxford and the Islamization of France were not prevented, only delayed. Now the jihad is on again in full force, aided and abetted by clueless and complicit Western authorities.

warriors of jihad in October 732 marched upon the shrine of St. Martin of Tours in north-central France, a favored site of pilgrims that contained a good deal of silver and gold.

But the Muslims made a disastrous miscalculation, drastically underestimating the strength of the forces that gathered between Tours and Poitiers to stop them. The commander of those forces was a Frankish duke named Charles, who gained the name Martel, “The Hammer,” for his decisive victory there. October 25, 732 was a bitterly cold day, and the Franks routed the jihadis, who had come dressed for a Spanish summer. The jihadis beat a scorched-earth retreat back to al-Andalus, burning and looting everything in sight.

The victory was decisive and all-important. The eighteenth-century English historian Edward Gibbon envisioned the continent’s complete Islamization had the Franks lost at Tours:

A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thou- sand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed with- out a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.

Of course, the teaching of the Qur’an in the schools of Oxford and the Islamization of France were not prevented, only delayed. Now the jihad is on again in full force, aided and abetted by clueless and complicit Western authorities.": fromThe History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS

In reply to by Fantome

Fantome BorraChoom Tue, 07/10/2018 - 14:00 Permalink

You might wanna edit your post as you copy pasted it twice. lol

Yeah muslims invaded France in 732 and lost. So what exactly are you trying to prove here ? or is it just another lousy attempt to deflect the focus from the crimes of the west ?

Also, that title in the last line of your post mentioning Muhammad and ISIS in the same line told me everything I needed to know. Maybe you need to read ZH more in order to understand that so called Islamic terrorism is actually Judeo-Sexist-capitalist terror unleashed on the civilian muslim polulation only because of their anti-capitalistic, anti-sexist approach. See we do all the bad shit ourselves and then blame it on out projected adversary.

If you're trying to understand how the wolf dances, I'll advise you to not believe a single thing that MSM or our leaders tell you to, unless you check it out with some other unrelated source, preferably foreign.

In reply to by BorraChoom

Element hxc Tue, 07/10/2018 - 04:38 Permalink

What this otherwise detailed article curiously fails to mention is the fact that in Aug 2006, right after the ceasefire between Hezbollah and the IDF, Assad swaggered on to the TV and openly threatened Israel with the possibility of an attack with "atomic bombs", if there was another conflict, and said stuff in paraphrase like, 'Things have changed now, you have had a leson, and it will never be the same way again', blah blah, etc.

 

Pointing to Assad as the main source of the IDF's failure to advance far in July 2006, and for their losses, and bad global PR.

 

Naturally later that year, Assad (and thus Syria also) had a nice big target on his head. He forgot that netyahoo et al., had a really nasty nuclear major ally, or three, who love selling weapons, and that the ceasefire he was clucking about just may not be the end of it.

 

He should have shutup.

In reply to by hxc

CatInTheHat Element Tue, 07/10/2018 - 23:42 Permalink

Again as stated above, what has that got to do with crimes of Zionists and the west? Israhell and US threaten Iran all the time. Heck, Bolton, Guiiliani and even Pelosi,  hanging out with/supporting yet another terrorist cult group, MEK, to plan regime change on Iran.

No matter what Assad said, it pales in comparison on to what the West and Israhelli, Saudi Wahabbi extremist ISIS did to Assads people and country. The Saudi Wahabbi Islamic extremists even made Christian Syrians convert to Wahabbism or be killed ..

Assad clearly not the problem 

In reply to by Element