http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/reelected-bashar-alassad-may-yet-have-the-last-laugh-on-syria/story-fnb64oi6-1229692715799

‘Re-elected’ Bashar al-Assad may yet have the last laugh on Syria

BASHAR al-assad was sworn in for another seven years as President of the Imaginary Republic of Syria on Wednesday night.

All around him the country is splintering, dying and on the run, and yet the Syrian leader, already in power for 14 years, was able to declare in his inaugural speech: “The Syrian people can give ­lessons in democracy.”

The British-trained eye-doctor is eyeless in Damascus. As he spoke, government troops killed and wounded reporters from the Turkish Anadolu Agency who were covering the use of barrel bombs against rebels and civilians.

Barrel bombs rolled out of helicopters into crowded markets and shells of nerve gas fired into city suburbs: these have become the distinguishing marks of the Assad regime. So far, close to 160,000 of his citizens have been killed.

Assad’s continuing swagger is down to two factors. First, the West, once committed to his overthrow, has come to accept that the President is not going anywhere.

Worse, he may even have to be part of a broad effort to defeat the Islamic State, the black-suited zealots who are laying claim to be the new global terror brand.

Second, nobody has come up with an opposition candidate strong enough to head off the violent collapse of the country.

The Assad family controls the security machine, the most ­effective parts of the army; its main arms supplier, Russia, is still keeping stocks high.

Iran sends a daily flight to ­Damascus, full of advisers, cash and medication for the elite.

Behind the walls of his Damascus palace, then, the President and his London-educated wife, Asma, have rarely felt so secure in the 40 months of this bloody insurgency. If nothing else, he can guarantee the security of his ruling Alawites.

He has reinforced his control over a strategic corridor running north from Damascus, he has taken back cities, including Homs, and his government forces are squeezing Aleppo.

“We might have to eat some hard crow,” says Ryan Crocker, a former US ambassador to Syria and Iraq. “As bad as the regime is, there is something worse: that is, the extreme elements of the ­opposition.”

And yet the country is collapsing beneath him. The economy has contracted 80 per cent.

There are no funds for reconstruction, no hope of significant foreign investment. President Assad’s election last month was won by 88.7 per cent of the vote — but voting did not take place in areas caught up in ­fighting.

The most trenchant measure of his failure is the huge humanitarian crisis that he has helped to create. Almost 11 million Syrians — half of the national population — are either living in refugee camps outside the country or have been displaced within Syria.

Many are in rebel-held areas and have been denied international aid. For them, Assad’s next seven years in office must seem like a biblical seven-year plague of pestilence and famine.

Britain and the US have unwittingly contributed to Mr Assad’s political longevity.

By blocking the supply of arms to moderate Syrian rebels, the West opened up an opportunity for the rapid expansion of the well-armed and well-trained Islamic State and al-Nusra Front forces.

The Free Syrian Army has been fighting on two fronts: against Islamic State and Assad troops.

Now Assad, encouraged by Iran, may turn on Islamic State.

Whatever happens will be part of a game cooked up in his palace with his Iranian and Russian advisers; its only real aim will be to prolong his dynastic rule.

His father, Hafez, died after three decades of iron-fisted rule. Bashar, still only 48, may be out to match that term.

lol - typical nonsense from the right. Basically they haven't learnt anything at all from the Libya experience.


freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2014 at 11:13am:

Britain and the US have unwittingly contributed to Mr Assad’s political longevity. By blocking the supply of arms to moderate Syrian rebels, the West opened up an opportunity for the rapid expansion of the well-armed and well-trained Islamic State and al-Nusra Front forces. The Free Syrian Army has been fighting on two fronts: against Islamic State and Assad troops.

Firstly, the US did send arms and supplies to the rebels for most of this conflict - until their little smuggling ring in Benghazi was busted by a terrorist attack (executed, ironically, by the beneficiaries of another US led regime-change operation). The problem was that most of the equipment ended up in the hands of the islamists.

Secondly, if you are going to advocate for a useful western intervention in Syria, you can't do it without putting pressure on both Saudi Arabia and Turkey to stop exporting and funding foreign jihadists in Syria.

So what would be a 'useful intervention'?

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

So what would be a 'useful intervention'?

A useful intervention would be against the Gulf monarchies - to stop them exporting wahabism and foreign terrorists around the region.

You must have lost you thesaurus Gandalf. Can you explain what a useful intervention would be without using the word intervention?

you've lost me FD.

Let's start again, from the beginning.

So what would be a 'useful intervention'?

Try to avoid limiting you description of it to "intervention".

Is there something cryptic about my opinion FD?

A useful intervention would be to sanction the Gulf kingdoms for exporting terrorists and wahabist ideology throughout the region.

I dare you to claim that is not clear enough.

oh I think I'm starting to get it...


freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2014 at 7:20pm:

I'm still waiting on your explanation of a "useful intervention" in Syria, beyond describing it as an intervention that is not in Syria.

It seems FD doesn't understand that Saudi Arabia and her little bitch Qatar are intimately involved in the Syrian conflict, through their exporting terrorists into Syria. And therefore sanctions against this activity directly affects the Syrian conflict.

Therefore, allow me to re-articulate my intervention statement:

A useful intervention in Syria would be to sanction the Gulf kingdoms who are exporting terrorists to Syria

How lucrative is this export industry for them? Would you oppose Australia exporting it's terrorists?

I would oppose Australia sourcing, funding and exporting terrorists - yes.

Where do you source them from? Overseas? Is this like a value added business?

See what I mean Setanta?

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2014 at 10:03pm:

Where do you source them from? Overseas? Is this like a value added business?

Apparently I'm in the terrorist sourcing business now.

Well I am a muslim so...

...FD caught me red handed sifting through the receipts at the Malik Fahd school.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2014 at 6:49pm:

You must have lost you thesaurus Gandalf. Can you explain what a useful intervention would be without using the word intervention?

Sometimes a question is just a question.

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

So what would be a 'useful intervention'?

Lachlan Murdoch having his father committed to an insane asylum, then setting about having his Australian newspapers and Foxnews work on being politically neutral.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 24^th, 2014 at 11:55pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2014 at 10:03pm: Where do you source them from? Overseas? Is this like a value added business? Apparently I'm in the terrorist sourcing business now. Well I am a muslim so... ...FD caught me red handed sifting through the receipts at the Malik Fahd school.

So what exactly do you mean by "exporting terrorists" and "sourcing" terrorists?

Should the US put sanctions on Australia because we are exporting terrorists to Syria?

Australia is not supporting and funding said "exported" terrorists - unlike Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Do you understand the difference?


Quote:

Saudi Arabia is said to be the world's largest source of funds for Salafi jihadist terrorist militant groups, such as al-Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistan Taliban, ISIS and Lashkar-e-Taiba in South Asia, and donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide, according to Hillary Clinton.[76] According to a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state, "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups."

Quote:

In December 2012 the New York Times accused the Qatari regime of funding the Al-Nusra Front, a U.S. government designated terrorist organization.[64] The Financial Times noted Emir Hamad's visit to Gaza and meeting with Hamas, another internationally designated terrorist organization.[65] Spanish football club FC Barcelona were coming under increasing pressure to tear up their £125m shirt sponsorship contract with the Qatar Foundation after claims the so-called charitable trust finances terrorist group Hamas. The fresh controversy follows claims made by the Spanish newspaper El Mundo that the Qatar Foundation had given money to extremist cleric Yusuf al Qaradawi who is an advocate of terrorism, wife beating and anti-semitism.[66] In January 2013 French politicians again accused the Qatari Government of giving material support to Islamist groups in Mali and the French newspaper Le Canard enchaîné quoted an unnamed source in French military intelligence saying that “The MNLA [secular Tuareg separatists], al Qaeda-linked Ansar Dine and Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa have all received cash from Doha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism

Yes, G, but Saudi Arabia and Qatar are demokracies.

I don’t think your reply.will answer FD’s question.

Quote:

Australia is not supporting and funding said "exported" terrorists - unlike Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Ah, so it is not the exporting and importing of terrorists that you actually have a problem with? It is just a convenient cliche, like hippies complaining about Australia exporting coal or importing cars?

Whatever floats your boat FD - my point was pretty clear.

Hardly. Getting it out of you was like pulling teeth. It took a page and a half to get you to go beyond "an intervention is an intervention"

freediver wrote on Jul 27^th, 2014 at 4:24pm:

Hardly. Getting it out of you was like pulling teeth. It took a page and a half to get you to go beyond "an intervention is an intervention"

Gandalf apparently saying an intervention is an intervention...


Quote:

if you are going to advocate for a useful western intervention in Syria, you can't do it without putting pressure on both Saudi Arabia and Turkey to stop exporting and funding foreign jihadists in Syria

I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend simple English FD - but there's no need to drag the whole discussion down with you.

Do you have anything useful to say on this view of mine - or are you going to continue waxing lyrical about the finer points of the word "intervention"?

Actually, Australia is also exporting and funding foreign Jihadists in Syria. By that I mean foreign to Syria of course. They are locals to us. Have you seen Abu lately, BTW?

Would it be a "useful intervention" for the US "pressure" us? What is that a euphemism for, anyway?

Yes I'm sure its making a huge difference to the war too.

Any thoughts on what, if any pressure the west should be applying to Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Turkey - who are largely responsible for the jihadist forces currently in Syria?

Quote:

Yes I'm sure its making a huge difference to the war too.

Every little bit count eh Gandalf? What price do you think Australia is getting from ISIS for all these terrorists we are exporting to them?


Quote:

Any thoughts on what, if any pressure the west should be applying to Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Turkey - who are largely responsible for the jihadist forces currently in Syria?

I doubt it. This is your story, after all. Perhaps some hand wringing? Muslims hate it when we do that.

Tell me FD, do you mock the idea that there is any foreign power meddling in Syria for their own geo-strategic interests - or just muslim countries?

A lot of truth is said in jest.