You are here
Home > News > Headlines > Pentagon backed terrorists continue deadly attacks in Syria

Pentagon backed terrorists continue deadly attacks in Syria

The US government and Israel have declared war on Syria and the Pentagon backed terrorists continued their series of bombings directed against Syria today. Bomb Explodes in Aleppo One Day After Deadly Damascus Attacks. The following is an interesting and informative film- [INFocus] What Is Really Happening In Syria? – Part 1 and Part 2 Yes, what is really happening TO Syria?

6 thoughts on “Pentagon backed terrorists continue deadly attacks in Syria

  1. how do we know the US backed these terrorists? Last time I checked it was more important for the regime to stay in power so American policy at least knew what it was dealing with. And besides, how would backing the dissident groups in
    establishment secularist Syria, establish anything other than Islamist democracy that so many in the state department and DoD fear anyway?

  2. James, are you really as naive as you appear to be? The US government has been at war against Iran for decades now, and Syria is Iran’s principle world ally. So you go figure it out, James.

    You also look like you need a refresher course about this US war against Iran that you appear to be obliviously ignorant about.

    For starters in your refresher course, James- Remember Saddam Hussein? Remember how the US funded his war against Iran by way of US allies Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Is your memory coming back some now, James?

    Remember how the US is Israel’s lover? Remember how Israel smashed into Lebanon several times tearing that country bloodily apart? Remember just what country opposed Israel? Good grief, James! Get with it, Child! You should be able to read and write A-B-C already!

  3. No logan you do not seem to understand the complexity of the situation.
    Syria’s ruling political party is comprised of a national minority called the Alawis. They’re involvement with the military and the government institutions put them in power during the last coup. They are religious minority widely eclipsed by their Sunni Muslim and Christian Syrian compatriots. The regime they have established is a secular totalitarian state that does not allow for political competition, from either religious or secular interests.

    As a result, the conflicts between Syria and Israel have been of a very nationalistic and pan-Arab leaning, with religious influence playing a lesser role. As the conflict between the two nations has simmered of the years, they have become familiar enemies. Since then, Syria and Israel have had a more or less begrudged peace. With the advent of the Arab Spring, however, there are Islamist and pan-Arabist currents that will significantly inform against totalitarian regimes. As we have seen, these movements have overthrown many totalitarian leaders and begun the process for democratic reform.
    This Tony Logan, is what scares Israel. Perhaps you are familiar with the phrase “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t?” Well such is the view of Israel, as it fears that the removal of the current Syrian regime to be replaced by what it fears could be an Islamist group. Obviously, the presence of an Islamist group is fearful for Israel (even though the fear is unjustified) and it does not want Hamas to get anymore support than it already has. That it might receive more funds from an Islamist body would weaken Israel’s ability to suppress Hamas over the Palestinian majority.

    If the US is supporting these rebels, then ‘A’ it is hurting Israeli security interests; ‘B’ it is overthrowing a government that is totalitarian and has no interest to cater to Islamists (which would be contrary to foreign policy in the past); and ‘C’ the US risks a higher tide of anti-Americanism should it actively push Islamist victory.

    All of this is true Tony Logan. Check a history text, or a book which ever is more available. Using you simplistic dichotomy to simply everything in international relations is both unfortunate and simplistic. Surely anti-imperialism and Marxist discourse have their place in analysis but manipulating every event to the morays of one viewpoint is intellectual dishonesty.

  4. James, Sorry, but I am afraid that it is you that simply does not understand very well the geopolitical alliances in the Middle East, and not myself. That might be because you are also most likely totally immersed in the ideology of what might be best termed ‘the imperialist apologist Left’, a group of leaning Left political zombies often enough made up of Lefty Social Democratic ‘Left Libertarians, and wandering, defrocked ex Trots with their constantly confused notions regarding ‘supporting’ national self determination.

    The US and Israel are allied with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and several ’emirates’ against Syria and Iran. That does not mean though that all is all just roses and doves in the US created bloc amongst the more minor partners within it. There are conflicts within this group as well as also their essential agreement and alliance to war against Iran and its allies, Syria under the Assad regime plus the many pro-Iranian Palestinian organizations.

    The imperialist apologist Left simplemindedly sees the Syrian battlefield as being merely a national uprising against a dictator, and therefore supports the forces fighting the current regime. From that totally lost in lala imperial America Land view point, geopolitical aligned warfare is only the most tertiary factor in the issue, and these imeprialist alligned ‘marxists’ must support… YES support the anti regime forces even as they line up with the US and Israel on the battlefield of the war against Iran.

    You say that ‘With the advent of the Arab Spring, however, there are Islamist and pan-Arabist currents that will significantly inform against totalitarian regimes. As we have seen, these movements have overthrown many totalitarian leaders and begun the process for democratic reform.’ which is pure moronic belief on your part, James. The recent events in Libya are not the ‘beginning of a process for democratic reform’ as you put it, but simply a push of Libya totally into the Imperialist US Empire’s control. The pro imperialist Left consisting of a large number of lost exTrots simply cannot figure that out though. Very sad…

  5. Wow, I just can’t concieve… an Imperialist ex Trot? Tony listen, if your going to sit here an call me names as a argument strategy its going to hurt our ability to understand each other. We ought to fight on the battlefield of ideas, not with rhetoric that derides and detracts from the conversation’s objectivity.

    Having said that, I would like to address your claim about the nature of the Libya. I did an essay on this recently Logan– Libya’s transitional government is in a state of flux. We have the Muslim Brotherhood as the categorically most organized, but it must contend with the growing power of the Salafists. Those secularist groups that may exist right now have been pushed to the wayside, or ignored (whatever the case, they are in the margin).

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/03/03/gordon-duff-israel-intervenes-in-libya-for-gaddafi/

    ^See that? Now tell me Logan, how would it benefit to overthrow a leader whose relationship to Israel would be considered to be less threatening than that of a rebel, perhaps Islamist new Libya?
    There is uncertainty, Logan on what will happen in Libyan with the transitional government. Perhaps the Muslim brotherhood and the Salafists will come to embrace the electoral system like Hamas or the nascent efforts in Egypt, or perhaps there will a ‘one vote, one time’ endgame.

    The US and Israel do antagonize Iran, there’s absolutely no argument there. And for the record I’m against all of the sanctions (for very historical reasons). But the reactions of some Arab states towards Iran, are in large part its own doing. In Saudi Arabia, Iran has tried to foment rebellion in its eastern cities. In Bahrain Iran is suspected (though Saudi Arabia and the UAE have not been able to explicitly prove it yet) of supporting the Shi’ite population (the Majority) to combat the ruling Sunni state (the minority). This is felt as a direct threat to the Gulf States. In Palestine, Hamas itself has made effort as of late to distance itself from Iranian funding for fear of cooption. In Morocco, the King cut formal ties to Iran because of its efforts to foment anti royal sentiment there (again along religious divisions).

    We need also to consider the nature of Persian and Arab ethnic rivalry as well. The series of historical conflicts between Arab nations and Persia has its roots in biblical times. Through the advent of Islam, the rivalry grew more entrenched as Islam became viewed by some Persians as an Arab cultural invasion. The religious and territorial fights between the Arab caliphates and the Mughal empire continued the ethnoreligious rivalry. This legacy still informs the present day attitude, and many Arabs strongly resent what some Sunnis consider the ‘heretical’ Shi’ite neighbors in Iran. American doesn’t like Iran, that for hella’ sure–but lets not pretend it introduced the idea of consolidation against Persia.

  6. Oh James, of the great US pro imperialist ‘Left’, your dismissal of the destructively negative and important role that the US imperialist Empire plays in ME internecine battles is truly awesome!

    ‘American doesnt like Iran, that for hella surebut lets not pretend it introduced the idea of consolidation against Persia.’

    James, your own super militarized capitalist government has been reduced down by you, to $$$Little Ol’ Innocent Us$$$. I think I’m going to throw up now… What do you see when you look at yourself in the mirror?

Leave a Reply

Top