Putin orders tough action on Syria threats

[rooster59]

Putin orders tough action on Syria threats

Talking tough at an annual meeting of Russia’s Defence Ministry. The message from President Vladimir Putin was clear – to eliminate any threats to his military in Syria.

He also revealed Russia is engaged in offensive actions in joint operations with regular Syrian forces against Islamist militants in Homs, Hama, Aleppo and Raqqa.

“I am ordering you to act tough. Any targets posing a threat to Russian divisions or Russian military targets on land, have to be annihilated immediately. In the mean time, cooperation needs to be developed with all countries that are genuinely interested in the annihilation of the terrorists,” he said.

The president did not elaborate on the specific threats. His speech comes with Russia locked in a row with Turkey.

On Thursday the country’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu accused Russia of attempting “ethnic cleansing” with its air strikes in northern Syria, targeting Turkmen and Sunni communities in and around the Latakia region.

The Russian Foreign Ministry rejected the claims.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2015-12-12

[craigt3365]

Maybe he should focus on rebels and not civilians:

http://time.com/4129222/russia-airstrikes-syria-civilian-casualties-isis/

One airstrike hit a post office, part of a series of strikes that killed 17 civilians. At least four other attacks targeted hospitals. An airstrike on Sunday hit a marketplace, killing at least 30 people.

Russia’s military intervention in Syria is killing civilians at a high rate in rebel-held areas of the country’s northwest, even as the campaign has failed to produce a decisive shift in the larger civil war between regime of president Bashar Assad and his opponents.

[does]

No "maybe" but surely. And now: eagerly awaiting your explanation of what led up to Russia's militairy campaign in the region.

[craigt3365]

I don't think there are any easy answers. But it was pretty much started by brutal dictators who've ruled Syria with an iron fist for decades. Syria, like many other countries in the ME, got caught up in the Arab Spring uprisings.

I did read this and it make sense. But who knows.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/us-russia-gas-pipeline-war-syria-could-destabilise-putin-103505758

As Orenstein explained, “in 2009, Qatar proposed to build a pipeline to send its gas northwest via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria to Turkey… However, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad refused to sign the plan; Russia, which did not want to see its position in European gas markets undermined, put him under intense pressure not to”.

Russia’s Gazprom sells 80 per cent of its gas to Europe. So in 2010, Russia put its weight behind “an alternative Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline that would pump Iranian gas from the same field out via Syrian ports such as Latakia and under the Mediterranean.” The project would allow Moscow “to control gas imports to Europe from Iran, the Caspian Sea region, and Central Asia.”

[konying]

Maybe he should focus on rebels and not civilians:

http://time.com/4129222/russia-airstrikes-syria-civilian-casualties-isis/

One airstrike hit a post office, part of a series of strikes that killed 17 civilians. At least four other attacks targeted hospitals. An airstrike on Sunday hit a marketplace, killing at least 30 people.

Russias military intervention in Syria is killing civilians at a high rate in rebel-held areas of the countrys northwest, even as the campaign has failed to produce a decisive shift in the larger civil war between regime of president Bashar Assad and his opponents.

Well at least he does not bomb hospitals , ehh?!

[konying]

I don't think there are any easy answers. But it was pretty much started by brutal dictators who've ruled Syria with an iron fist for decades. Syria, like many other countries in the ME, got caught up in the Arab Spring uprisings.

I did read this and it make sense. But who knows.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/us-russia-gas-pipeline-war-syria-could-destabilise-putin-103505758

As Orenstein explained, in 2009, Qatar proposed to build a pipeline to send its gas northwest via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria to Turkey However, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad refused to sign the plan; Russia, which did not want to see its position in European gas markets undermined, put him under intense pressure not to.

Russias Gazprom sells 80 per cent of its gas to Europe. So in 2010, Russia put its weight behind an alternative Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline that would pump Iranian gas from the same field out via Syrian ports such as Latakia and under the Mediterranean. The project would allow Moscow to control gas imports to Europe from Iran, the Caspian Sea region, and Central Asia.

Interesting analysis, under so called brutal dictator there was no civil war and Syrians did not migrate to Europe in millions , yet under great democracy defined by some, hundreds of thousands are killed and millions hiding elsewhere.

[MadDog2020]

Maybe he should focus on rebels and not civilians:

http://time.com/4129222/russia-airstrikes-syria-civilian-casualties-isis/

One airstrike hit a post office, part of a series of strikes that killed 17 civilians. At least four other attacks targeted hospitals. An airstrike on Sunday hit a marketplace, killing at least 30 people.

Russias military intervention in Syria is killing civilians at a high rate in rebel-held areas of the countrys northwest, even as the campaign has failed to produce a decisive shift in the larger civil war between regime of president Bashar Assad and his opponents.

Well at least he does not bomb hospitals , ehh?!

What.....you can't read ?

[h90]

Maybe he should focus on rebels and not civilians:

http://time.com/4129222/russia-airstrikes-syria-civilian-casualties-isis/

One airstrike hit a post office, part of a series of strikes that killed 17 civilians. At least four other attacks targeted hospitals. An airstrike on Sunday hit a marketplace, killing at least 30 people.

Russia’s military intervention in Syria is killing civilians at a high rate in rebel-held areas of the country’s northwest, even as the campaign has failed to produce a decisive shift in the larger civil war between regime of president Bashar Assad and his opponents.

Comes from that 1 person agency from London?

[h90]

I don't think there are any easy answers. But it was pretty much started by brutal dictators who've ruled Syria with an iron fist for decades. Syria, like many other countries in the ME, got caught up in the Arab Spring uprisings.

I did read this and it make sense. But who knows.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/us-russia-gas-pipeline-war-syria-could-destabilise-putin-103505758

As Orenstein explained, in 2009, Qatar proposed to build a pipeline to send its gas northwest via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria to Turkey However, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad refused to sign the plan; Russia, which did not want to see its position in European gas markets undermined, put him under intense pressure not to.

Russias Gazprom sells 80 per cent of its gas to Europe. So in 2010, Russia put its weight behind an alternative Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline that would pump Iranian gas from the same field out via Syrian ports such as Latakia and under the Mediterranean. The project would allow Moscow to control gas imports to Europe from Iran, the Caspian Sea region, and Central Asia.

Interesting analysis, under so called brutal dictator there was no civil war and Syrians did not migrate to Europe in millions , yet under great democracy defined by some, hundreds of thousands are killed and millions hiding elsewhere.

Well Assad was never a brutal dictator...he was a friendly socialist, with good healthcare, education, freedom of religion and equal rights for women.

Actually the same like in Afghanistan before the USA supported the freedom fighters.....Strange the bad Soviets called them religious fanatics and Terrorists.....Later the freedom fighters called themself Taliban.

[noitom]

We need a global media organization - Reuters, Bloomberg, AlJazeera, BBC....to spell out clearly and "objectively" what the situation is in Syria and Iraq

[craigt3365]

Maybe he should focus on rebels and not civilians:

http://time.com/4129222/russia-airstrikes-syria-civilian-casualties-isis/

One airstrike hit a post office, part of a series of strikes that killed 17 civilians. At least four other attacks targeted hospitals. An airstrike on Sunday hit a marketplace, killing at least 30 people.

Russias military intervention in Syria is killing civilians at a high rate in rebel-held areas of the countrys northwest, even as the campaign has failed to produce a decisive shift in the larger civil war between regime of president Bashar Assad and his opponents.

Well at least he does not bomb hospitals , ehh?!

At least four other attacks targeted hospitals

[SgtRock]

does, on 12 Dec 2015 - 09:48, said:

No "maybe" but surely. And now: eagerly awaiting your explanation of what led up to Russia's militairy campaign in the region.

The current President of Syria invited his ally, Russia to assist him against the dearth of groups trying to depose him.

[craigt3365]

Well Assad was never a brutal dictator...he was a friendly socialist, with good healthcare, education, freedom of religion and equal rights for women.

Actually the same like in Afghanistan before the USA supported the freedom fighters.....Strange the bad Soviets called them religious fanatics and Terrorists.....Later the freedom fighters called themself Taliban.

That's a joke about Assad, right???

[craigt3365]

We need a global media organization - Reuters, Bloomberg, AlJazeera, BBC....to spell out clearly and "objectively" what the situation is in Syria and Iraq

All those media organizations already have. Plenty of articles about what's going on. It's a very complicated situation that's basically become a proxy war with innocent civilians caught in the middle. But all started by a brutal dictator.

[SgtRock]

noitom, on 12 Dec 2015 - 10:21, said:

We need a global media organization - Reuters, Bloomberg, AlJazeera, BBC....to spell out clearly and "objectively" what the situation is in Syria and Iraq

The first casualty of war is truth.

If you want a clear and concise objective, it is not going to come from any news source.

[SgtRock]

craigt3365, on 12 Dec 2015 - 10:25, said:

h90, on 12 Dec 2015 - 10:20, said:

Well Assad was never a brutal dictator...he was a friendly socialist, with good healthcare, education, freedom of religion and equal rights for women.

Actually the same like in Afghanistan before the USA supported the freedom fighters.....Strange the bad Soviets called them religious fanatics and Terrorists.....Later the freedom fighters called themself Taliban.

That's a joke about Assad, right???

Actually it is not. Syria was quite a nice place at one time.

Did things change. They sure did. To be objective one must investigate why those changes happened.

[yankee99]

Well Assad was never a brutal dictator...he was a friendly socialist, with good healthcare, education, freedom of religion and equal rights for women.

Actually the same like in Afghanistan before the USA supported the freedom fighters.....Strange the bad Soviets called them religious fanatics and Terrorists.....Later the freedom fighters called themself Taliban.

That's a joke about Assad, right???

Not necessarily ajoke. Democracy is just not for everyone and what works in some countries dont work in others. Lets ask if Syria was better off now or pre 2011? Same with Iraq is it better now or with Sadam.

[FangFerang]

I am not buying the spin from either side in this debate.

The West looked the other way and even escorted known terrorist convoys with US choppers.

Russia has a vested interest in the gas and oil routes.

Both sides are destroying lives and countries for profit, so picking a side is like choosing between homicidal maniacs for a new son-in-law.

[mercman24]

got to admit when old SADDAM and GADHAFI were ruling the roost, we never got any of this <deleted>, and a local said some time ago, when Saddam was in charge at least we could go to the market,now when you go you get a good chance of being blown up.

[craigt3365]

Actually it is not. Syria was quite a nice place at one time.

Did things change. They sure did. To be objective one must investigate why those changes happened.

I hear what you are saying, but the facts speak for themselves. Assad and his father murdered many of their own people. Freedom of speech was non-existent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad#Human_rights

A 2007 law required internet cafes to record all the comments users post on chat forums.^%5B113%5D Websites such as Wikipedia Arabic, YouTube and Facebook were blocked intermittently between 2008 and February 2011.^{%5B114%5D%5B115%5D%5B116%5D}

Human Rights groups, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have detailed how the Assads regime's secret police routinely tortured, imprisoned, and killed political opponents, and those who speak out against the regime.^{%5B117%5D%5B118%5D} In addition some 600 Lebanese political prisoners are thought to be held in regime prisons since the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, with some held for as long as over 30 years.^%5B119%5D Since 2006 it expanded the use of travel bans against dissidents. In that regard, Syria is the worst offender among Arab states.^%5B120%5D The Syrian mukhabarat is Alawite dominated.^%5B121%5D

...................

It was reported that 200,000 political prisoners were in jail in Syria for opposing the Assad regime

His father:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafez_al-Assad

The final showdown, the Hama massacre, took place in February 1982^[96] when the government crushed the uprising.^[97] Helicopter gunships, bulldozers and artillery bombardment razed the city, killing thousands of people.^[97] The Ba'ath government withstood the uprising not because of popular support, but because the opposition was disorganized and had little urban support.^[97] Throughout the uprising, the Sunni middle class continued to support the Ba'ath Party because of its dislike of political Islam.^[97] After the uprising the government resumed its version of militaristic Leninism, reverting the liberalization introduced when Assad came to power.^[98] The Ba'ath Party was weakened by the uprising; democratic elections for delegates to the Regional and National Congresses were halted, and open discussion within the party ended.^[98] The uprising made Syria more totalitarian than ever, and strengthened Assad's position as undisputed leader of Syria.^[98]

Easy for us to sit here and say things were better before these Arab Spring uprisings. We didn't live there. They happened for a reason and it wasn't the fault of the west. Poor leadership.

Worth reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

[Srikcir]

I don't think there are any easy answers. But it was pretty much started by brutal dictators who've ruled Syria with an iron fist for decades. Syria, like many other countries in the ME, got caught up in the Arab Spring uprisings.

I did read this and it make sense. But who knows.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/us-russia-gas-pipeline-war-syria-could-destabilise-putin-103505758

As Orenstein explained, in 2009, Qatar proposed to build a pipeline to send its gas northwest via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria to Turkey However, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad refused to sign the plan; Russia, which did not want to see its position in European gas markets undermined, put him under intense pressure not to.

Russias Gazprom sells 80 per cent of its gas to Europe. So in 2010, Russia put its weight behind an alternative Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline that would pump Iranian gas from the same field out via Syrian ports such as Latakia and under the Mediterranean. The project would allow Moscow to control gas imports to Europe from Iran, the Caspian Sea region, and Central Asia.

Interesting analysis, under so called brutal dictator there was no civil war and Syrians did not migrate to Europe in millions , yet under great democracy defined by some, hundreds of thousands are killed and millions hiding elsewhere.

I wouldn't define ISIL/ISIS/Daesh as a great democracy

[Jonathan Fairfield]

Putin: Russia provides air cover to Syrian opposition group

VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia has provided air cover to a leading Western-backed opposition group in Syria, President Vladimir Putin said Friday, calling for closer coordination with the U.S.-allied coalition — comments that may reflect Moscow's desire to narrow its differences with the West over the Syrian crisis.

At the same time, Putin vowed to further modernize Russia's military and said its forces in Syria will "immediately destroy" any target threatening them, a strong warning to Turkey following its downing of a Russian warplane at the Syrian border.

Speaking at a meeting with top Defense Ministry officials, Putin said while supporting the Syrian government forces, Russia has backed some units of the Free Syrian Army, a Western-backed opposition group fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad's army.

"Several (FSA) units totaling more than 5,000 people, along with regular troops, are conducting offensive operations against terrorists in the provinces of Homs, Hama, Aleppo and Raqqa," Putin said. "We have provided air support for them as well as the Syrian army, helping them with weapons, ammunition and supplies."

While Putin sounded unequivocal, his spokesman Dmitry Peskov said a few hours later that the president meant to say that Russia is sending weapons and supplies to Syrian government forces and not the FSA, but provides air cover to both. Peskov's statement could be an attempt to assuage Assad, who calls the FSA and other moderate opposition groups "terrorists."

Putin and his officials said before that Russia had cooperated with the FSA, but the group's representatives have denied that.

If confirmed, Russian support for the FSA will represent a major policy shift for Moscow, which has been accused by the West of striking moderate rebels to back up Assad instead of its declared goal, the Islamic State group.

Asked to comment on Putin's claim, U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said that "it's unclear to us also, whether these -- these claims of support for the FSA are true." He reaffirmed that "the vast majority of airstrikes conducted by Russian military aircraft are against opposition groups to Assad and not aimed at ISIL."

"By and large, there's been no major change in calculus from what we've seen them hit, and they are largely continuing to hit opposition," Kirby added.

Asked whether the coalition should coordinate more with Russia, British Defense Minister Michael Fallon dismissed Putin's statements saying Moscow has to play a more constructive role in the political transition in Syria.

"What they've got to do is stop propping up the Assad regime, stop bombing opposition groups who are opposed to the Assad regime, stop dropping unguided munitions on innocent villages and groups who've been fighting Assad, and get behind the political process that is now under way of leading that country to a more pluralist government and a future without Assad," said Fallon, who was speaking at a press conference in the Pentagon alongside U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

Russia's Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Russian warplanes have flown 4,000 combat sorties in Syria since Moscow launched its air campaign on Sept. 30, destroying 8,000 "terrorist" targets. He added that Russia moved 214,000 metric tons of supplies to support the military action in Syria and helped restore a tank repair factory in the Syrian province of Homs.

Without naming Turkey, Putin said the military should respond in full force to any further "provocations." He said the Russian military base in Syria has been beefed up with additional aircraft and air defense weapons.

"I order you to act in the toughest way," Putin said. "Any targets threatening the Russian groups of forces or our land infrastructure should be immediately destroyed."

At the same time, he said the military should "develop cooperation with all countries, which have a real interest in destroying terrorists," specifically mentioning the need to coordinate with the U.S.-led coalition and Israel to ensure flight safety.

Speaking on a visit to Rome, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov offered a rare praise for the U.S.-led coalition, saying Moscow is glad to see it has "intensified its activities," targeting oil facilities and trucks in IS-controlled territories. He emphasized the need to shut the Syrian border with Turkey, saying that Turkey's downing of a Russian warplane amounted to a "cover-up of terrorists."

The downing of a Russian bomber by a Turkish fighter jet on Nov. 24 has badly strained relations between Moscow and Ankara.

Turkey said it downed the Russian plane after it violated its airspace for 17 seconds despite repeated warnings, while Russia has insisted the plane had remained in Syrian airspace. Putin has denounced the Turkish action, ordered the deployment of S-400 long-range air defense missile systems to a Russian base in Syria and introduced a slew of economic sanctions against Turkey.

Turkey's foreign minister said Friday his country is refraining from responding, but added the country's patience has limits. "If we are not responding to all that they have done until now, it is not because we are afraid or because of any psychology of guilt," Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told NTV television.

Putin said the Russian military action in Syria is essential for protecting Russia from extremists based there. He has said between 5,000 and 7,000 citizens of Russia and other ex-Soviet nations have joined the Islamic State group.

"Our action there hasn't been prompted by some abstract geopolitical interests or a desire to train and test new weapons systems, which is important too," Putin said. "The main thing is to avert a threat to the Russian Federation."

Russia's ambitious arms modernization program has continued at full pace this year, even though low oil prices and Western sanctions drove the economy into recession. Shoigu said the military has received 35 new intercontinental ballistic missiles, 243 aircraft, 90 air defense systems and 1,172 tanks and other armored vehicles in 2015.

He added the navy received two new nuclear-powered submarines equipped with intercontinental ballistic missiles, two general-purpose submarines and eight surface warships this year.

The military also expanded its presence in the Arctic, building several new bases and other military facilities there.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-12-12

[SgtRock]

Quote

The final showdown, the Hama massacre, took place in February 1982^[96] when the government crushed the uprising.^[97] Helicopter gunships, bulldozers and artillery bombardment razed the city, killing thousands of people.^[97] The Ba'ath government withstood the uprising not because of popular support, but because the opposition was disorganized and had little urban support.^[97] Throughout the uprising, the Sunni middle class continued to support the Ba'ath Party because of its dislike of political Islam.^[97] After the uprising the government resumed its version of militaristic Leninism, reverting the liberalization introduced when Assad came to power.^[98] The Ba'ath Party was weakened by the uprising; democratic elections for delegates to the Regional and National Congresses were halted, and open discussion within the party ended.^[98] The uprising made Syria more totalitarian than ever, and strengthened Assad's position as undisputed leader of Syria.^[98]

@ CraigT

I did not want to clog up the thread pasting all your last post.

I just wanted to comment on your quote above.

Can you tell me any Government that would not crush an uprising by whatever means necessary ?

Would it really be surprising to ditch liberalism after a brutal uprising ?

I get that you are totally against war. That is your position and good for you. I have no issues with your position. I do get the feeling, from reading various posts, not only in this thread, but also in other threads. That you are particularly naïve when it comes to the ways of the world, especially in certain Countries.

This is not a criticism but merely an observation.

Edited December 12, 2015 by SgtRock

[craigt3365]

Many governments have had popular uprisings and have stepped down without resorting to killing innocent civilians. Or peacefully met with the protesters to negotiate a settlement. Here's but one example.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/04/romanian-government-resigns-nightclub-fire-victor-ponta

Can't argue with the fact Syria was ruled by dictators only interested in their preservation. If that wasn't the fact, why not have free and fair elections and allow the people to choose their own leaders?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_Spring

Officially a Republic, Syria has been governed by the Baath Party since 1963 and was under Emergency Law from 1963 until 2011; the head of state since 1970 has been a member of the Assad family.

Under Hafiz al-Asad, president of Syria from 1970 until his death in 2000, political activity had been strictly controlled, and from 1980 onwards effective opposition activity became almost impossible. Five principal security agencies served primarily to monitor political dissent: A state of emergency had existed since 1963, with military courts applying martial law and special courts trying political cases with little regard for human rights or due process. Prisoners were routinely tortured and held in appalling conditions.

From 1998 on, the level of repression diminished noticeably. Following the death of Hafiz al-Asad in June 2000 his son, Bashar, was installed as president of Syria.

I know I would not like living under these conditions. I'm sure you wouldn't either. Right???

From the above link, I think this sums it up quite nicely:

The Damascus Spring can be seen as having mobilised around a number of political demands, expressed in the "Manifesto of the 99" signed by prominent intellectuals. These were, principally, the cancellation of the state of emergency and abolition of martial law and special courts; the release of all political prisoners; the return without fear of prosecution of political exiles; and the right to form political parties and civil organisation. To these was often added the more precisely political demand that Article 8 of the Syrian constitution be repealed. This article provides that "the Arab Socialist Ba'th Party leads the state and society".

Nothing about outside influence. It was an internal matter created by the Syrian leaders.

[craigt3365]

I get that you are totally against war. That is your position and good for you. I have no issues with your position. I do get the feeling, from reading various posts, not only in this thread, but also in other threads. That you are particularly naïve when it comes to the ways of the world, especially in certain Countries.

This is not a criticism but merely an observation.

Yes, 100% against war...of any sort. Not sure about naive. Biased? Absolutely. Just like everybody else. I've not lived in the US for many years. And have been to over 85 countries. Spending many months in countries like China, Argentina, Chile, India, etc. Only been to the ME a bit, but have been to 4 countries there so far. I like slow travel.

In a few months, I'll be spending quite a bit of time in the 'Stans. Should be interesting!

[SgtRock]

craigt3365, on 12 Dec 2015 - 12:37, said:

Many governments have had popular uprisings and have stepped down without resorting to killing innocent civilians. Or peacefully met with the protesters to negotiate a settlement. Here's but one example.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/04/romanian-government-resigns-nightclub-fire-victor-ponta

Can't argue with the fact Syria was ruled by dictators only interested in their preservation. If that wasn't the fact, why not have free and fair elections and allow the people to choose their own leaders?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_Spring

Quote

Officially a Republic, Syria has been governed by the Baath Party since 1963 and was under Emergency Law from 1963 until 2011; the head of state since 1970 has been a member of the Assad family.

Under Hafiz al-Asad, president of Syria from 1970 until his death in 2000, political activity had been strictly controlled, and from 1980 onwards effective opposition activity became almost impossible. Five principal security agencies served primarily to monitor political dissent: A state of emergency had existed since 1963, with military courts applying martial law and special courts trying political cases with little regard for human rights or due process. Prisoners were routinely tortured and held in appalling conditions.

From 1998 on, the level of repression diminished noticeably. Following the death of Hafiz al-Asad in June 2000 his son, Bashar, was installed as president of Syria.

I know I would not like living under these conditions. I'm sure you wouldn't either. Right???

From the above link, I think this sums it up quite nicely:

QuoteThe Damascus Spring can be seen as having mobilised around a number of political demands, expressed in the "Manifesto of the 99" signed by prominent intellectuals. These were, principally, the cancellation of the state of emergency and abolition of martial law and special courts; the release of all political prisoners; the return without fear of prosecution of political exiles; and the right to form political parties and civil organisation. To these was often added the more precisely political demand that Article 8 of the Syrian constitution be repealed. This article provides that "the Arab Socialist Ba'th Party leads the state and society".

Nothing about outside influence. It was an internal matter created by the Syrian leaders.

Free and fair elections are just not possible in some Countries. That is why election monitoring teams are deployed over all certain parts of the world. You cannot compare the mindset of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, SA etc with the mindset of Romania. I will play a little bit of Devils advocate here. Do you really think the Romanian Government resigned over a nightclub fire ? Much more to that story than has been released for public consumption.

The point that I was trying to make. probably failing miserably, is that not all Countries are able to function under what we '' Westerners '' call democracy. I would go as far as to remonstrate that what we '' Westerners '' deem to be Democracy is actually nowhere near Democracy.

I, perhaps even we, are currently living under a Military Regime. Is it anywhere near what is reported in some sections of the media ? I cannot say that I have even noticed. However, I am also equally sure that some undesirables have learned the hard way.

Political prisoners and Political exiles are sometimes polite ways of describing hard core bad boys. Political demands under the threat of violence are hardly the way to win sympathy for your cause. Mindsets are different all over the world and some mindsets have not progressed much from the stone ages.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating that Dictatorship is the way forward. I am merely suggesting that for some Countries it is the only way.

[craigt3365]

Sorry, but don't agree. Free and fair elections are possible in every country. It's the leaders that get in the way....for power and money. Democracy is definitely not a "one size fits all" concept. But freedom, self determination and the basic pillars of democracy should be an essential right to every person in the world.

[SgtRock]

craigt3365, on 12 Dec 2015 - 12:44, said:

SgtRock, on 12 Dec 2015 - 12:27, said:

I get that you are totally against war. That is your position and good for you. I have no issues with your position. I do get the feeling, from reading various posts, not only in this thread, but also in other threads. That you are particularly naïve when it comes to the ways of the world, especially in certain Countries.

This is not a criticism but merely an observation.

Yes, 100% against war...of any sort. Not sure about naive. Biased? Absolutely. Just like everybody else. I've not lived in the US for many years. And have been to over 85 countries. Spending many months in countries like China, Argentina, Chile, India, etc. Only been to the ME a bit, but have been to 4 countries there so far. I like slow travel.

In a few months, I'll be spending quite a bit of time in the 'Stans. Should be interesting!

Not sure why you would be going to any Stan if you are so Anti war.

You probably wont last long before you have a nervous breakdown

[slipperylobster]

Maybe he should focus on rebels and not civilians:

http://time.com/4129222/russia-airstrikes-syria-civilian-casualties-isis/

One airstrike hit a post office, part of a series of strikes that killed 17 civilians. At least four other attacks targeted hospitals. An airstrike on Sunday hit a marketplace, killing at least 30 people.

Russias military intervention in Syria is killing civilians at a high rate in rebel-held areas of the countrys northwest, even as the campaign has failed to produce a decisive shift in the larger civil war between regime of president Bashar Assad and his opponents.

Well at least he does not bomb hospitals , ehh?!

Which of the four hospitals that were targeted were not hit?

[SgtRock]

craigt3365, on 12 Dec 2015 - 13:07, said:

Sorry, but don't agree. Free and fair elections are possible in every country. It's the leaders that get in the way....for power and money. Democracy is definitely not a "one size fits all" concept. But freedom, self determination and the basic pillars of democracy should be an essential right to every person in the world.

Ok. Good luck with that.

I wish you well.