Wednesday, December 18, 2013

CLAP IN QUSAYR, AND TRIPOLI ECHOES. By Ghassan Kadi 26 May 2013

CLAP IN QUSAYR, AND TRIPOLI ECHOES.
By Ghassan Kadi
26 May 2013

Any major political event that happens in Syria reverberates in Lebanon, and vice versa. And to understand how a Syrian Army win in Qusayr can echo in Tripoli Lebanon, we have to go back to the drawing board of Lebanese politics.

Ever since the Republic of Lebanon has been an independent entity, politics in Lebanon has been a combination of democracy and feudal hierarchy. Not only the Lebanese Parliament is based on sectarian representation, with quotas that are meant to give fair per-capita representation of different religions and sects, but the leaders themselves are in reality feudal leaders who pass on their leadership to the eldest son.

Sectarian and feudal as it was, it was kept “functioning” as the feudal lords had some role to play in attracting votes. Those feudal lords had to compete with their local competitors with the aim of attracting votes to put them in the Parliament.

No less competitive was the competition between Sunni leaders, both within their own electorates and regions, and also nationwide.

The position of Prime Minister (PM) in Lebanon is exclusive to Sunnis (according to the Lebanese Constitution). Ever since independence, this position has been the outcome of a game of musical chairs played in between the prominent Sunni families of Solh (of Beirut), Karami (of Tripoli), Salam (of Beirut) and few other minor ones.

The change from one PM to another did not mean much, but the same could be said even about Western democracies. Recent events have shown that not even Obama was able to implement real change. However, the change in the leadership and the person of the PM in Lebanon did a lot of good and as times it meant that certain reforms and/or changes had to be implemented, and the competitiveness between the legacy leaders kept the population buzzing with news of failures and scandals, and it was difficult for any politician to find a façade to hide behind.

Moreover, apart from swinging voters (who would have to be minorities in Lebanon), political loyalties were often based on personal acquaintances with the actual leaders. Those leaders had to have “open salons” for their constituencies where they often offered sweets and refreshments and people went there asking for special favours; such as fixing the village roads and even personal ones such as finding jobs for their children. Those loyalties were very personal and very strong, and quite often, the hardcore loyalists were prepared to put their lives on the line in protection of their leaders.
Then suddenly, this delicate, archaic, but somehow functional system was hit with a political atom bomb; the Hariri bomb.

Rafik Hariri was a self-made billionaire. He was an entrepreneur who was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. When he wanted to get into the political scene in Lebanon, he did not have a legacy to capitalize on, he had to create one. He spent hundreds of millions of dollars on national projects including rebuilding Beirut’s CBD which was ravaged during the Civil War. His Hariri Foundation sponsored the tertiary education of thousands of students. He did do a lot of good things which no traditional politician has ever done. But at the same time, he rose to political power by bringing into Lebanon the American style of campaigning with an open and overt corruption that his son Saad was later on better able to be shameless about.

At leadership level, Saad Hariri has literally bought the Sunni leadership legacy with the power of money. The Karami legacy in Tripoli under the leadership of the patriarch Omar Karami did not kowtow to him, but Hariri managed to create a split in this family and found splinter groups who are now pro-Hariri Karami’s. The other Beiruty and/or Sunni legacies had to either tow the Hariri line or simply vanish.

Even prominent and highly respectable Sunni politicians (such as ex: PM Salim Al-Hus) have lost their seats, and Hus had to lose his seat to a virtually unknown bimbo named Ghonwa Jalloul to the outrage of many Lebanese.

One of his Akkar MP’s (Muin Merhibi) has recently lost his cool and brandished his AK47 and emptied its magazine in the air in defiance of a Lebanese Police check point.

At the hierarchal political level, Hariri makes it clear to his puppet MP’s and regional leaders that he wants numbers and not necessarily brains within his ranks. All they have to do is to follow his orders, unquestioned.
Other self-made leaders in Lebanon have gained support and loyalists in the past by having charisma and their ability to round up people with agendas of reform, promises of freedom from feudalism, etc…. but Hariri cannot even speak. His only asset is his deep wallet.

At street level, Hariri has literally bought votes for cash, and even sent free return tickets to Lebanese ex:pats who live in places as far as the USA and Australia to go and vote for his candidates nationwide. The loyalty of this new age of loyalists is not based on personal relationships that connect the leader with the community. They are only on money. That said, there is a new form of loyalists, those who have an Islamist fundamentalist agenda, and they are using Hariri’s money to have free access to arms so they can go and fight their Jihad wars in Syria and prepare for their Jihad war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Hariri has also bought a huge percentage of the religious Sunni leadership and when, for example, Malek Shaar, the Mufti of Tripoli opens up his mouth to speak, he would only be regurgitating the words and emotions of Hariri.

More can be said about this dangerous Mafiosi, Saad Hariri. But in relation to the recent developments in Tripoli, he is the only reason behind the perpetuation of the fighting. The blood is on his hands. This is the only place where he is able to vent his hatred on Shiites, and the only reason this is possible is because Jabal Mohsen is a tiny area that is totally surrounded from all angles by his thugs. And in the wake of the advances of the Syrian Army in Qusayr, he sent his thugs to retaliate in the hope of taking over the Alawi region of Jabal Mohsen. They failed and failed abysmally.

In doing this, he is truly playing with fire in the most dangerous manner possible. If this Tripoli conflict is not resolved, and if the Jabal Mohsen community capitulates, Hariri thugs will march in and kill every man woman and child.

If the Jabal Mohsen militia reach the enough-is-enough point and start attacking rather than defending (as their leader Rafaat Ali has said recently), then the fire will be highly like to spread to engulf all of Lebanon.

Among other hate-mongers, in Saida South Lebanon Hariri has his puppet Sunni Imam, Ahmed Al-Asir who has been making it very clear that he wants to fight Hezbollah and kill Shia. This half-wit is waiting for half a signal from his ulterior master Saad Hariri to send the South into a blood bath.
Ironically and sadly, Hezbollah does not only need to focus on averting Israeli danger, but also to deal with those sectarian war mongers and blood thirsty Jihadists.

What is more ironic, is that Hariri and his Jihadist policies are all happening with the blessings of the West, the same West that is mourning the innocent slain British soldier.

Originally published here: Screen shots provided to prove this is Ghassan Kadi's work. It was stolen and republished elsewhere (see below these screen shots for details)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/283089981710448/permalink/599521460067297/




This work of Ghassan Kadi's was taken and presented on "Arabi Souri's" website as his own. He did not seek Ghassan's permission and put himself as the author. In the comments section a USA-Israeli dual national who co-writes Syrianews.cc with "Arabi Souri" heaped praised on the article. What other writings of Kadi over all these years has been plagiarised word for word and presented  as "Arabi Souri's" own?
http://www.syrianews.cc/clap-qusayr-tripoli-echoes/
Screen shots from Arabi Souri's website of the work he passed off as his own.



And the USA-Israeli who helps write Syrianews.cc praised the article which was presented as the work of her colleague "Arabi Souri" but is in fact the work of Ghassan Kadi.
"Arabi Souri" who actually lives in Dubai now uses this profile.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100018002822192


















Tuesday, December 17, 2013

A DEBATE WITH FSA SUPPORTERS February 2013



A Debate on Vonvo 26 February 2013 (mainly with Mary Rizzo)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/283089981710448/permalink/560120787340698/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAIJObseuuw

Discussions on Facebook in The Syrian Revolution The Untold Story. Some profiles are deactivated so are not captured on the screen shots.















Thursday, December 12, 2013

The Russian Lion. Translated/Interpreted by Ghassan Kadi & Intibah Wakeup

The Russian Lion
By Sami Koleib, Al Manar
12, December 2013

 

The use of the term “Russian Bear” has become commonplace. This is a term that came from the West, perhaps from Britain.  That term was meant to distort the image of Russia as a state that is associated with harshness and viciousness.  Reciprocally, a rosy picture is used to describe the United States as the “American Dream”.  The extent of this comparison, especially during the Cold War, did not seem to bemuse the Russians much.  The Russians themselves adopted the idea to the extent that they used the bear as their international mascot in sporting and celebratory arenas. This included the image of a Russian bear playing the balalaika, an image the Russians and the rest of the world loved.

 

Ever since the former polished-faced ex KGB Vladimir Putin took over the reins in his country, a new image emerged. Today he is referred to as the Master of the Kremlin, transformed into a “lion within the jungle of the international community”, one who grabs opportunities and gets them. The image of the President who is an athlete, a musician, a businessman, an ever-youthful and energetic person, a judo and taekwondo wrestler, despite him being 62 years old, he has become one who was capable of upsetting the easy slumber of the White House and NATO.

 

There is hardly any exaggeration in this description. Putin has been able to dictate his terms upon the "international jungle", as the term “international community” would be too kind a description. He has forced NATO to review its defence shield policy.  He threatened a return to the arms race.  He averted most UNSC resolutions that he did not agree with. Together with China and other BRICS nations, he decided to change the path of the mono-polarity of the world.  He alluded to establishing a new international monetary fund which would exchange the USD for a new currency. He used a speech he gave in 2008 in which he vehemently said that America needs to treat Russia as an international partner and that the time of mono-polarity has ended and that the rest of the world does not follow Washington’s agendas.

 

In this "international jungle", Putin made his way to the Middle East resolutely via two avenues; Syria and Iran.  He is also capable of getting in via the Israeli gate as Russia has more than a million Israelis of Russian origin.  During the peak of the Syrian crisis, he visited Tel Aviv and offered his services as the only party that is able to play the role of mediator between Israel and the countries with which Israel finds it the most difficult to deal with.

 

Putin realised that the resilience of the Syrian government in face of those who wish to topple President Bashar Al Assad would give Russia more credibility. He never said he was defending Assad, but rather defending international law.  This is an important stand for him and the image of his country.  He can say that he defended a State and enabled it to remain standing.  This gives more credibility to the Russian role. Others defended the other side and found themselves having to" go back to the Russian argument that iterates that military intervention and toppling a government by force would fail and that the departure of Assad, prior to Geneva II, is not acceptable and that priority needs to be given to fighting terrorism.  Together with China, he formed an international diplomatic shield to protect the Syrian government and followed that with military hardware, experts and perhaps more.

 

Certain Western and Arabic States tried to distort the image of Putin. Some of them claimed that he is supporting a dictatorial regime and contributing to Syrian bloodshed.  Saudi Arabia said, at some stage, that Russia will lose its interests in the region. Putin did not move by one inch. It became imperative for the Saudi chief of intelligence, Bandar, at the end, to go and visit Moscow (to try to negotiate).

 

Putin takes another step in expanding his sphere of influence. He sends his foreign minister Sergei Lavrov to Tehran to establish a broad based partnership.  The stern Lavrov, just like his President, says that Russia is determined to broaden and improve its relationships with Iraq in an attempt to contribute towards stability of that country. Putin affirmed that Iran is a main player in Geneva II.

 

A few kilometres away the GCC Summit is held.  There is a huge concern.  For the first time cracks appear that threaten its unity.  The Sultanate of Oman, which is close to Iran and Syria, takes a stand that is tantamount to mutiny against the bigger states. The Emirates exile some opponents under the justification of preventing them from political activities.  Kuwait sends to Damascus indications of openness despite the concerns of its conservative hawks.  All States, except Qatar, declare an open or covert war to curb the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

What is new in the GCC Summit is condoning the Iranian-Western resolution. This is quite pertinent given that it comes only a few weeks after Saudi Arabia declines to comment on the matter.  What is also new here is the unanimous condoning of the participation of the Syrian National Coalition in Geneva II. This is more important as this new deal stipulates that Assad remains in power and also comes after the Syrian Army and its allies are just about to finish taking control of Damascus province after the battle of Qalamoun. Everything else is well known.  To expect more out of this resolution would be like waiting to hear of another Israeli settler killing a Palestinian in Jerusalem before the GCC decides that Jerusalem should be the capital of Palestine.

 

Putin agrees with America that Iran should not have nuclear weapons and that Israel should remain strong.  They both concur on the priority of fighting terrorism which makes it imperative that Arab armies remain strong including the Syrian Army. This can diminish the westward Islamic expansion.  These are the points of agreement between America and Russia, but their competition is stronger.

 

Westerners feel the danger of Russian expansion, this is why the West considers it ok to use Ukraine as a gateway (to hit at Russia).  Europe feels driven to support the opposition.  The American Assistant Secretary of State meets with the Ukrainian opposition.  France tries to sabotage the Western-Iranian nuclear deal, and it continues to keep good links with Saudi Arabia after it abandoned Qatar in the hope of upgrading the status of the armed opposition against the Syrian government.  None of this seems to faze Russia.  Putin continues to go from strength to strength, imposing his own terms.

 

The time of American military gambles is no longer viable.  Putin realises this.  Here enters into the scene the chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, General Muhammad Ali Jaafari.  He ridicules the recent American-Israeli rhetoric about a military strike about Iran, saying “…any talk about military action against Iran is ridiculous”

 

The world changes.  Instead of adopting the traditional American way of invading countries, invasions that are very expensive and without clear, foreseeable outcomes, at a time when America has serious domestic issues, Barack Obama is more in favour of negotiating peaceful agreements.  Vladimir Putin seems more credible as he has been able to achieve a new and serious era that is based on the end of global unilateralism.  The global lion does not seem to be prepared to back off at any cost.  Russians are once again feeling elated by his enhancement of their national pride. But what will he do with Syria’s lion (Assad)? Will he continue to support him to the end? This is the determinator.  There is a conviction in Damascus that Russia would not have won its political battle if the Syrian government fell. The most recent communication between Putin and Assad has partly bolstered this understanding to say the least.

 

Translated/Interpreted by Ghassan Kadi and Intibah Wakeup.

Original Article:
http://www.almanar.com.lb/adetails.php?eid=675475&cid=31&fromval=1&frid=31&seccatid=171&s1=1

Monday, November 25, 2013

THE DEFINING MOMENTS; IRAN’S DAY: Ghassan Kadi 24 November 2013

THE DEFINING MOMENTS; IRAN’S DAY:
Ghassan Kadi
24 November 2013

When the war in Syria is over, history will record it in a different manner from the manner in which we experienced it. To begin with, the reader of this epic story will most probably know the end result before reading it, and will not experience the day-by-day waking up every morning to listen and to read about the latest developments.

However, what is pertinent right here and now, today, is this moment in time that will be recorded as another turning point. The epic story will be written in terms of such major turning points, and today will be remembered and this cannot be said and repeated emphatically enough.

Thus far, and as the epic story is still unfolding, let us stop for one moment to see those turning points, the defining moments:

1. The “Arab Spring” starts in Tunisia in mid December 2010. In a few days, it topples its president and starts gaining momentum in Egypt.

2. Mubarak falls on the 11th of February 2011, only 18 days after the “revolution” against him started. Shortly after, Muhammad Morsi the Muslim Brotherhood leader is elected as president.

3. The “Spring” moves west into Libya.

4. The UNSC reaches a mandate to implement a no-fly zone in Libya and NATO starts striking Libya.

5. In March 2011, demonstrators in Daraa Syria take to the streets demanding reform and terrorist elements shoot at them and at Syrian army units.

6. The orchestrated events in Daraa are used as a pretext to launch a propaganda campaign against Syria and flooding it with tens of thousands of militants most of whom were Islamic Jihadists.

7. A coalition comprised of Saudi Arabic, Qatar, and Turkey backed by all Western powers combined was aimed at Syria and specifically against the presidency of Bashar Al-Assad. The coalition included the newly-elected Egyptian president Morsi and even included both sides of the Palestinian political divide.

8. A similar but opposed pro-Syrian coalition was formed comprised of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, and to some extent China.

9. In the meantime, the battle in Libya rages and NATO breaks its UN-given mandate and plays a huge part in bringing down Gaddafi who eventually was killed on the 20th of October 2011.

10. The anti-Syrian coalition sought a UNSC resolution to implement a no-fly zone in Syria. China and Russia vetoed the resolution. The coalition tried several times later, but it is the first veto that will be remembered the most.

11. The fall of Gaddafi gave the anti-Syrian coalition momentum and it banked on a repeat of the story in Syria.

12. The seemingly reluctant Syrian government to turn the clashes into an all-out war encouraged more and more militants to infiltrate into Syria via Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. The militants controlled a huge chunk of Syria, including parts of Aleppo and Damascus and were gaining the upper hand.

13. On the 18th of July 2012 a big explosion in Damascus kills 4 top ranking military personnel including the minister of defence and Assad’s brother-in-law. The militants reach the peak of their might at this point.

14. The battles rages and Syria unleashes its army.

15. For a few months afterwards, both parties (ie the Syrian Army and the militants) make claims that victory is near without any major changes on the battle ground.

16. On the 5th of June, an ominous date for Arabs, but this time it was 2013 not 1967, the Syrian army aided by Hezbollah score a major victory in Qusayr, a strategic position between Damascus and Homs.

17. With more minor Syria army victories, the militants realized that they were losing the ground battle. They needed a shift in their favour.

18. On the 23rd of June 2013, the prince of Qatar abdicates and cedes his throne to his son. His number 2 man Hamad leaves with him. This is seen as a sign of defeat of Qatari policies in Syria.

19. On the 3rd of July, a military coup in Egypt topples the Muslim Brotherhood president Morsi giving Turkey, Qatar and Islamists in general a huge blow.

20. On the 31st of July 2013, Saudi prince Bandar Bin Sultan, the top Saudi anti-Syrian conspirator visits Putin in a desperate attempt to persuade him to change his position. He returns home disappointed and empty-handed.

21. With events turning towards the benefit of Syria in an escalating manner, in August 2013, Saudi intelligence orchestrates a chemical attack in East Ghouta accusing the army of killing children in a desperate attempt to either push for a UNSC resolution against Syria or to at least give the USA enough excuse to attack Syria without a UNSC resolution.

22. Russia stands firm with Syria in the UNSC and within the Moscow-Washington corridors and draws a red line.

23. Washington believes that Moscow is bluffing. Obama orders an attack on Syria. Two missiles were shot from a NATO base in Spain aiming for Syria. The Russians shot one down and diverted the second into the sea.

24. The Russians contact the Americans and tell them they will keep the story hush-hush to avoid diplomatic problems and further escalation and force the Americans into the negotiating position and offer them an olive branch based on Syria surrendering its chemical weapons as a face-saving exercise for the Americans.

25. American foothold in the Middle East is shaken, and America is cornered into accepting to start negotiations with Iran to the shear anger and disappointment of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

26. Yesterday, on the 24th of November 2013, the West concedes that Iran has legitimate rights to seek nuclear power heralding the end of sanctions against Iran.

This is where we are now and today. We shall read the rest of the story in history books, but today is Iran’s day.

Congratulations Iran. Thank you for your support to Hezbollah. Thank you for your support to Syria. Thank you thank you thank you. You deserved today’s great victory.

Bandar and Netanyahu, eat your hearts out.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

RUSHING TOWARDS RUSSIA. By Ghassan Kadi

RUSHING TOWARDS RUSSIA
Ghassan Kadi
23 November 2013
As they say, we can only choose our friends, not our family; and this is what human relationships are based on; the choice of who we want to be our friend, business partner or even a spouse.
This is a choice that is considered to be tantamount to freedom and independence, a choice that the right of attaining is something that people fight and are happily ready to die for.

This same fact is also true for groups, tribes, communities and nations.
 

With their diversities in skills and resources, different nations need alliances with other nations to “complete each other’.  Very few nations have the resources and expertise to allow them to stand on their own in this highly developed and competitive world that we live in.  It is this realisation that has pushed the bandwagon of the concept of globalisation and it has probably pushed it a little bit too far. Nonetheless, that push came from a vital need.

 
When political and military conflicts are added to this cocktail, the issue of a nation choosing its own friends becomes very much contingent upon who its enemies are. If we relate this argument to Syria and look at the draconian alliance of its enemies which included all of the Western powers plus Turkey, the Gulf States and Israel just to name the major ones, Syria had no choice but to seek friends and partners with whom it could not only share issues of mutual interest in peace time but also in war time.


Fortuitously, when Syria was looking for friends Russia was in a very similar situation and even though Syria and Russia have had a long standing alliance that goes back all the way to the days of the USSR, this alliance had to be redefined and the boundaries had to be restructured.  After all, this is now Putin’s post USSR and post Boris Yeltsin Russia.

 
A lot has been said about the needs and the interests of Russia in Syria to the extent that we now see vicious and rabid attacks accusing Russia of being a colonialist holding Syria to ransom. The recent oil/gas contract that the Syrian government has granted to the Russians has been like fodder to those Russia hating cynics. What they do not see is that Syria is not rushing towards Russia. This is a natural and normal progression of a long standing alliance that has now fully matured in a time of war.

President Assad has been saying time and time again that once this war is over Syria is going to reciprocate loyalty because now it knows who its friends and enemies are.

If this means nothing to some people and if they see it as a sell-out then perhaps they should consider this other argument. Some argue why not give the contract to Venezuela because they also have the necessary technology and perhaps they might have offered Syria a better financial deal.  People who subscribe to this option seem to forget that this is the Middle East that we are talking about and if we all of a sudden have oil rigs in the sea that are owned and operated by post Chavez Venezuela, a State that is considered by the West as a rogue state, Syria would be giving Israel carte blanche to attack those installation any time, without any notice and neither Syria nor Venezuela would be able to respond to these attacks except by military retaliation.  Having Russia running these operations is an insurance policy that guarantees no scheming zealot will ever dare come near them.

Back to the issue of national alliances; the vocal cynics and critics of Syria’s foreign policies are not offering any viable alternatives. If Syria were to stand alone as some critics seem to suggest, they seem to ignore that Syria would not only have to drill its own natural resources when they don’t have the finances let alone technologies for it, but, Syria would also have to manufacture its own military hardware all the way to tanks and fighter jets and, again, Syria at this stage neither has the finances or the technology to do this.

We forgot something here didn’t we? Syria would have had to use its Syrian made military hardware to fend off a UNSC mandated resolution to attack her because it would have had no Russian Veto to avert this.

Some may rightfully be cynical about the long term viability of the Syrian – Russian alliance and whether or not this alliance will be based on a partnership of equality and mutual respect. No one can give any solid guarantees how this will all pan out in 5, 10 or 20 years from now. What we do know however, is that this alliance, at least potentially, has the hallmark of a long and mutually beneficial collaboration in which Syria will be the new regional oil and gas power and replace Saudi Arabia as a supplier and a kowtower to the West and instead be a true partner to Russia and a sovereign and independent regional power.  

 

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

APPEAL TO MEMBERS; RUSSIA AND SYRIA. By Ghassan Kadi 16 November 2013



*Posted to the members of "The Syrian Revolution; The Untold Story" which was the first serious and large pro-Syria group which Intibah was an admin of along with Chris Assad and Hiba Kelanee/Syriana/Salaam Shaheen). By mid 2013 we had our first problems with nefarious agents, first the ones sowing doubt about Syria's allies and then thousands of trolls that eventually succeeded in overwhelming the Syrian-Levantine led movement and diverting it.
APPEAL TO MEMBERS ; RUSSIA AND SYRIA
G
hassan Kadi
16 November 2013


There have been a lot of speculations recently about the role of Russia in the Levant, especially after the Syrian Chemical Weapons (CW) deal.

The issue has caused quite a bit of controversy ranging from supporters for the whole Russian intervention including that of the CW deal, to utter rejectionists who regard the deal as tantamount to Syrian surrender and a total Syrian sell-out to Russia.

In some instances, the differences escalated to a level that seems to be increasingly becoming divisive even amongst the ranks of the pro-Syrian camp. This can become a serious matter unless debated openly and rationally. At the moment, this issue seems to be ignored, perhaps in fear of creating divisions. The anti-Russian camp is perhaps feeling marginalized because those who do not support this view (who are by the way the majority) are not debating the matter. In an attempt to clear the air and bolstering solidarity, I suggest that we debate this matter and invite those who have different opinions to make their contributions.

Arabi Souri, is an outstanding member of this group whom I greatly cherish and respect. He has made many significant contributions in exposing the truth about Syria. Most of my thoughts and analyses go hand-in-hand with those of Arabi and I have learnt so much in the past from his input. However, on the issue of the role of Russia I vehemently disagree with his vision.

There is no doubt that Putin is an aspiring world leader and that he sees that Russia has interests in Syria, but to regard the current Russian role as an act of treachery against Syria is totally and utterly ill-founded and there is no evidence to support. In fact, if anything, the evidence points exactly in the other direction.

To be brief and straight to the point, I will outline in dot point the reasons that make me adopt the “pro-Russian” side (if I can refer to it as such):

a. Russia is regaining and restoring its global role. Its first stand was in Georgia back in 2009.

b. Russia made it clear in the UNSC time and time again that it will veto any anti-Syrian resolution, and it did.

c. Russia made clear to NATO that attacking Syria without a UNSC resolution is a red line that will not be tolerated.

d. Russia has never put boots on the ground in foreign nations, not even in Vietnam. Not helping Syria directly is a Russian tradition.

e. The US thought that Russia was bluffing and launched 2 missiles heralding an all-out attack on Syria in early September. Russia thwarted the attack and destroyed one of the missiles, and hacked into the other one and had it diverted.

f. The Syrian CW’s were already an ageing liability.

g. The purpose of weapons CW’s included is protection. Syria’s CW’s performed without having to be fired. They served their role to the highest expectation.

h. The CW deal was a face-saving exercise for the USA and an attempt to find a political resolution, Russia’s and Syria’s way. It was a deal that America was forced to accept, not the other way around. Never before did the USA huff and puff about attacking a country to back off later until Syria. This is the greatest joint Russian Syrian victory ever, and those who do not see it as it is do not have a proper vision of global politics.

i. Russia and Syria want to go to Geneva II when war on the ground is fait accompli. Even Kerry said to Lavrov recently what is the point in going to Geneva after the Syrian Army scores more victories.

j. If Putin is a con man as his adversaries describe him, Assad is not a fool, neither is Nasrallah.

k. For Russia to step up the global ladder, it needed and found strong regional allies. It support for Syria is because Syria proved to be strong.

l. On the other hand, the US allies proved to be weak and worthless and America found itself having to justify to its own people its support for Al-Qaeda.

m. Even without the 2-missiles saga, that is still largely denied, America was very reluctant to strike Syria. It is a nation that is already bankrupt and engaged in many expensive wars.

n. The Anti-Syrian alliance is breaking up. The Emir of Qatar abdicated and his powerful man Hamad had to go with him. Egypt is out of the grip of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar and Turkey. Turkey is witnessing internal turmoil and is having second thoughts about its involvement in Syria. The USA knows it cannot strike Syria. Israel is disappointed that the US is having talks with Iran. It is only Bandar who is still trying to pull a trick out of a hat and hope for a miracle that gives him some bargaining edge in Geneva II. None of this would have happened if the Syrian Army didn’t have enough time to deal with the situation on the ground. Had Russia not vetoed the UNSC resolutions against Syria, history would have taken another course.

o. The US and its allies are in a total loss in Syria. They have lost the ground battle, they are divided, and they have lost their initiative and long-term policy. They simply do not know which way to go.

Arabi, in a recent article, argued that all of the above is a façade and that it would be impossible to see Saudi Arabia standing on its own without America. I agree with the second part of this statement. Saudi Arabia cannot stand up on its own and America has no allies left in the region except Israel which will not go into an all-out war with Syria to please Bandar.

Syrian Girl Partisan goes in her anti-Russian rhetoric to the extent of attacking the wisdom and intelligence of President Assad. This is improper, demoralizing and harmful. Again, Syrian Girl has been a very active pro-Syrian activist and she too has played a big role in spreading the truth about Syria. However, her stand on Russia and on President Assad is quite vicious and needless.

My call to Arabi, Syrian Girl and their anti-Russian camp is to have a debate about this subject if they wish. Thus far, this issue has not been handled properly. As a matter of fact, there has recently been a public display of discord among members.

Just because they do not seem to understand the changes in the geo-political order of the world and the rise of Russia (and the BRICS axis in general), some anti-Russian advocates have made some comments about those who support Russia’s role in Syria and branded them as being irrational and naïve. This has been going on for some time and I was hoping it would simply fizzle away, but it only got worse.


This is inappropriate to say the least and should not continue. Any rational discussion is something that we should welcome on this group and any other group provided that it sticks to rationality and refraining from throwing insults and making personal attacks.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/283089981710448/permalink/685189741500468/

*screen shots of  the post are directly below for record keeping purpose but scroll further down for very interesting comments from members are pasted below. Some members, such as Arabi Sour's comments are no longer visible as that particular profile is deactivated.