Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla

donsutherland1 said:

On this point, we agree. While I won't suggest that Secretary Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense in history, I do believe Secretary Gates was among the finest.

Click to expand...

Oh I believe he was the worst. Never have we had a non-seving SECDEF that refused to appreciate the wisdom of military generals. He regarded our military leadership with disdain. He's the patient that insists upon transplanting his own heart because the surgeon isn't good enough. Rumsfeld was probably the most hated.

donsutherland1 said:

In most cases, I believe the U.S. should not get involved in domestic insurrections. The exceptions would be cases where critical national interests are at stake. In that context, I believe that the U.S. made a strategic blunder in abandoning the Shah of Iran. That would be a rare case where I believe the U.S. should have backed the embattled ruler. When the U.S. pulled its support, the Army lost all sense of purpose and disintegrated. Iran has evolved into a hostile revolutionary state and possibly one that is bent on developing nuclear weapons. It made a strategic blunder in pressuring President Musharraf to step aside and should have maintained a consistent message of seeking a transition to more democratic rule, but with the timelines left to the Pakistanis. Pakistan has since evolved into an unreliable, often hostile, and decaying state. It should come as no big surprise that not only had Osama Bin Laden found refuge in Pakisan (whether or not there was some governmental support is a different matter) and Al Qaeda's #2 commander who was targeted in the most recent drone attack was there, as well. Power vacuums are exploited and what's happening in Pakistan is par for the course.

Click to expand...

I believe we mess up when we forget our historical purpose and mission. We have always been in the business of stabilizing regions. A nation may be the focus, but the wider vision has always been abour region. We learned long ago that our security depends on te health of foriegn regions. Iran wouldn't be an interest to us if it didn't affect a region. Saddam Hussein could have been an isolated Castro if he didn't constantly threaten a region. Syria, specifically, is another internal issue, but because it threatens to pull Turkey (our ally) in it become external. A disentigrated Syria also threatens Israel and Lebanon, which would involve wider Arab intrusion. There isn't a country in the Middle East that doesn't involve the region. It should be of no surpise to people that the Middle Eastern region (and fringes) is the world's only unstable, unhealthy region left. The absence of democracy, healthy politicial expression, social justice, and economic prosperity is no coincidence. Dictators and religious theocracy is the cultpret. Religious radicalism and extremism is the reaction. And the "Osama Bin Ladens, Hezbollahs, and Al-Quedas" are the result.

donsutherland1 said:

I don't believe the U.S. should be involved in Syria. The lack of critical interests, lack of support for such intervention by longstanding U.S. allies such as Jordan and Israel, and lack of any political vision or commitment to representative government or reliable partnership with the U.S. all argue against it.

Click to expand...

I believe Syria, like the rest, will involve the region because Syrians are a part of this Sunni Arab idea of dhumma. They all follow each other. Besides, Turkey is stressed out. Israel is stressed out. Lebanon is stressed out. The Arab League is demanding that the UN do something (notice once again how quickly the League seeks help from the foriegn devils in the absence of Arabs doing for themselves). Obviously, it is imperitave that we get global blessing before we strike (with allies and without mass ground troops), but Syria is an internal problem that is going to eventually invoke international Sunni radicals and disaster for the region. And this absolutely forces our hand.

donsutherland1 said:

Human nature is universal. Political goals are not. The hope that a party to a civil conflict might eventually organize itself into a coherent and representative government is insufficient basis for U.S. military intervention or arms supplies. IMO, the U.S. should limit its focus to the protection of civilians, not armed elements (be they Assad's military and paramilitary units or his opponents' armed groups). If the parties wish to negotiate some kind of arrangement, that's there choice. If they choose to settle their differences on the battlefield, that's there choice, too.

Click to expand...

I agree...as long as this remains truly an internal issue and remains simply another event where Muslims are celebrating the slaughter of fellow Muslims.

MSgt said:

Oh I believe he was the worst. Never have we had a non-seving SECDEF that refused to appreciate the wisdom of military generals. He regarded our military leadership with disdain. He's the patient that insists upon transplanting his own heart because the surgeon isn't good enough. Rumsfeld was probably the most hated.




I believe we mess up when we forget our historical purpose and mission. We have always been in the business of stabilizing regions. A nation may be the focus, but the wider vision has always been abour region. We learned long ago that our security depends on te health of foriegn regions. Iran wouldn't be an interest to us if it didn't affect a region. Saddam Hussein could have been an isolated Castro if he didn't constantly threaten a region. Syria, specifically, is another internal issue, but because it threatens to pull Turkey (our ally) in it become external. A disentigrated Syria also threatens Israel and Lebanon, which would involve wider Arab intrusion. There isn't a country in the Middle East that doesn't involve the region. It should be of no surpise to people that the Middle Eastern region (and fringes) is the world's only unstable, unhealthy region left. The absence of democracy, healthy politicial expression, social justice, and economic prosperity is no coincidence. Dictators and religious theocracy is the cultpret. Religious radicalism and extremism is the reaction. And the "Osama Bin Ladens, Hezbollahs, and Al-Quedas" are the result.




I believe Syria, like the rest, will involve the region because Syrians are a part of this Sunni Arab idea of dhumma. They all follow each other. Besides, Turkey is stressed out. Israel is stressed out. Lebanon is stressed out. The Arab League is demanding that the UN do something (notice once again how quickly the League seeks help from the foriegn devils in the absence of Arabs doing for themselves). Obviously, it is imperitave that we get global blessing before we strike (with allies and without mass ground troops), but Syria is an internal problem that is going to eventually invoke international Sunni radicals and disaster for the region. And this absolutely forces our hand.



I agree...as long as this remains truly an internal issue and remains simply another event where Muslims are celebrating the slaughter of fellow Muslims.

Click to expand...

The problem with the Houla massacre is that the photos of dead children are from Iraq in 2003.

Hillary should be very careful.. We don't know what is going on in Syria.

sharon said:

The problem with the Houla massacre is that the photos of dead children are from Iraq in 2003.

Hillary should be very careful.. We don't know what is going on in Syria.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The problem is that the Houla massacre is merelt a single event amongst many events going on.

The entire world knows what is going on inside Syria. Even Russia and China has acknowledged it. The Arab League is begging once again from the "foreign devils" that they wish for Western support in the absence of Muslims doing for themselves. The UN has been clear about hat is going on. Not that any of this necessarily means that we automatically need to be involved (unless the UN declares a genocide, thereby making it an American obligation by international law), but the events in Syria are threatening the region, which is what we do care about.

The entire world knows what is going on inside Syria.

Click to expand...

Nobody knows what is going on in Syria.

Kane said:

Click to expand...

War should only be a last resort and this is war isn't necessary.Look at how many are being injured

"Yesterday’s deaths took the overall fatalities among US/ISAF troops this year to 692—479 of whom were Americans. Between 500 and 600 American troops are also being wounded in Afghanistan every month, many suffering horrifying injuries from roadside bombs."


Another massacre of civilians in Afghanistan


I don't want you to take this as personal critique if you're in the military. It begs an answer is a response from the policy makers, Obama, (NeoCon in liberal clothing) does this not prove its bad policy? The sacrifice too great for the soldiers as well as civillians?

Anyway, here is a video about the media and the war on terror ...[video=google;-3221571017565436923]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3221571017565436923#[/video]

“War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.” George Orwell

MSgt said:

What are you talking about? The problem is that the Houla massacre is merelt a single event amongst many events going on.

The entire world knows what is going on inside Syria. Even Russia and China has acknowledged it. The Arab League is begging once again from the "foreign devils" that they wish for Western support in the absence of Muslims doing for themselves. The UN has been clear about hat is going on. Not that any of this necessarily means that we automatically need to be involved (unless the UN declares a genocide, thereby making it an American obligation by international law), but the events in Syria are threatening the region, which is what we do care about.

Click to expand...

The photos of the Houla massacre were taken in Iraq in 2003...

Khayembii Communique said:

Nobody knows what is going on in Syria.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why you say this. Syrian government officials, Syrian rebels, the Arab League, UN observors, the American intel network, the Russian government, the Turksih government, etc. are clueless? The media is producing more and video taken from Syria showing the attacks. It is very clear what is going on. And who is going to be surprised to eventually find out that religious radicals are probably also at play to excite the situation? We know what is going on inside of every nation. Despite the reports, videos, and intel, Syria is supposed to be a black hole of mystery?


Google

sharon said:

The photos of the Houla massacre were taken in Iraq in 2003...

Click to expand...

You do realize that the event did occur right? You do realize that many events have and are occurring right? You do realize that these events are going to lead to greater issues that will suck in international players right? BBC photos to illustrate the event was a BBC blunder. It really doesn't change anything.

What I find amusing in a pathetic sort of way is when Republicans wage "war" they are killers of babies and the innocent. When Democrats wag "war" its justified and they are saving a civilization.

What's Syria going to look like when you save them from Assad, The Muslim Brotherhood? **** that.

I for one have become tired of the half-assed intervention the US engages in around the globe which only costs tax payers billions and billions of dollars and good Americans their lives. I say give it all up and let others be. My apologies go out to the rest of the world in advance for not saving you from tyranny but if you want freedom then save yourselves like the British colonists did in the late 1700s.

Freedom isn't free. Don't expect Americans to die for your cause any longer, whatever that may be.

Is Assad's brother still in charge of the Syrian army?

Luna Tick said:

We bomb other countries. We have drones that kill innocent people automatically. It's in an attempt to get terrorists, but we end up killing innocents. Then when we express outrage over an atrocity committed by another country, we look like such incredible hypocrites. I don't care which party is in power. This should stop. I would be here with the same objections if Bush Jr. were still president and if it were Condoleezza Rice expressing the outrage. We're outraged? Give me a break.



Full Article:
Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla - Yahoo! News

Click to expand...

There is a difference between targeting and murdering civilians like Syria does and having civilian casualties that are unfortunate things in any conflict. You cannot compare the actions of America in the Middle East with Syria.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1060577424 said:

What I find amusing in a pathetic sort of way is when Republicans wage "war" they are killers of babies and the innocent. When Democrats wag "war" its justified and they are saving a civilization.

What's Syria going to look like when you save them from Assad, The Muslim Brotherhood? **** that.

I for one have become tired of the half-assed intervention the US engages in around the globe which only costs tax payers billions and billions of dollars and good Americans their lives. I say give it all up and let others be. My apologies go out to the rest of the world in advance for not saving you from tyranny but if you want freedom then save yourselves like the British colonists did in the late 1700s.

Freedom isn't free. Don't expect Americans to die for your cause any longer, whatever that may be.

Click to expand...

But it's not about the rest of the world. We could care less about slaughtered Muslims in the Middle East or Africa. We could care less about holocausts and devistating ideologies. What we do care about is our trades and economic growth, which has always been affected by unhealthy regions. If we could isolate and rely upon other nations to keep those regions stable and from sucking the world into global cataclysms, we would. This is why we shelved our values and morality during the Cold War and accepted the service of dictators.

America has been leading a crusade against the grain of the world for over two hundred years. We have caused or have been a part of the dismantling of 11 empires; all of which catered to anti-democratic organization and encouraged conflict. We haven't encouraged democracy because we care about them. We haven't freed water ways because others needed their trade routes. And we haven't globalized the world because we want everyone outside our borders to live in peace. Our crusade has been self serving. Democracy, free trade, and economic globalization go a long way to preserving us. With over 120 democracies being created since 1900, the rest of the world merely benefits from our crusade.

We did everything we could to avoid having to go to Europe to deal with their first Civil War. Afterwards, as the most powrful nation on earth, we created the League of Nations to give Europeans a way to express themselves without war. They failed. It took us until 1944 to physically acknowledge that we had to involve ourselves with Europe's health again. Afterwards, as the most powerful nation in history, we created the United Nations. Having learned from Europe's handling of the League of Nations, this time we stayed. But both times we struggled with our trades between the allies and the central/axis powers. Were it not for the exodus of European colonial powers across the world and the Soviet Union rushing in to strangle health, we would have went right back to isolation. With the Middle East representing the world's last unhealthy region and with global populations becoming more and more globalized and connected, perhaps the day will come when we can go back and embrace a bit of isolationism again. But in the mean time, we are stuck either ignoring the problems until they evolve into global catastrophe that kills more Americans or we deal with the frustrating problems as they arise and complain about whether of not it's our business.

We live in a world where the rest have been determined to drag us all to hell over their idealisms, selfish intentions, apathies, and conquering motivations. Such things are less likely today to drag us into global warfare, but this is only because we have encouraged democracies and the globalization of trade, economy and populations.

‘BBC uses fake photo of old Iraq massacre for Houla Syria massacre’; Propaganda for NATO war?


"This May, 2012, the British state-run broadcaster BBC has been caught passing off an old photo from Iraq in 2003 for the massacre in the Syrian town of Houla.

"In a report published hours after the massacre, the network used an old photo of dead Iraqi children taken in Al Mussayyib that was first published over nine years ago and presented it as a photo of victims of the recent massacre of civilians in the town of Houla in western Syria, The Telegraph reported.

"The photo shows a child jumping over the dead bodies of hundreds of Iraqi children who have been transferred from a mass grave to be identified.

__________________________________________________________________________

More NeoCon warmongering falsehoods, this time from the British press. The Guardian has also been instrumental in blaming Assad for killings perpetrated by U.S. armed militias, so that the Pentagons unending quest for control of the worlds oil supply goes forward.



Read more: ‘BBC uses fake photo of old Iraq massacre for Houla Syria massacre’; Propaganda for NATO war? | NewsRescue!

My sentiments about the entire mid east mess-

Nothing wrong with a good old fashioned condemnation. It cleanses the soul. Its essentially meaningless, but we don't want to look cold about mass genocide in today's politically correct world. Our condemnations are worded as if these mid east atrocities have never happened before. Although they have been going on and in many cases far worse for millenniums.

It's really ok for our heads of state to say bad country, baaad country.... but when we do, and then "talk" of potential and or possible retribution, we really should start backing up our words more. But now comes the real killer, how?... Or should I say, when, where, how and why would be good as well.

I for one am not against "action" political, economic or good old fashioned military beat down. Any of these should have some meaning to them and have actual effectiveness. I was never against military action in Iraq, but quickly became opposed to what our military action came to be. Opponents to military action were and are wrong in thinking that we cannot win by military action simply because. We have not and are not done well because of what, and how our military action is and was.

If we perhaps went with good old fashioned military strategy we would do far better than we have and are currently doing. For whatever reason, we have largely abandoned this starting with Korea and then went even further down this flawed new ideology with Vietnam. GHWB was about the only smart one when dealing with Iraq in the 1st Iraq conflict. Knock the piss out of them then GTFO. It worked pretty damn well. Too bad that his predecessor and then his son did not follow good old fashioned military strategy, which includes not tipping your friggen hand as to what we are about to do. Imagine the surprise of a grandmaster of chess if he were to announce his strategy and tell his opponent the moves he is about to make and then having his opponent be fully prepared for his moves.... Of course then some pencil neck lib analyst crawls out of his cubicle, and proudly announces that it is an unwinnable situation. He is partly correct, the strategy used makes it an unwinnable strategy, but the military option itself is not an unwinnable one if implemented correctly. And by that I mean not only the actual engagement strategy, but the where and when as well.

Political and economic sanctions also need to be made far more effective. Condemnations are meaningless and not taken seriously if the peaceful options carry no weight. I myself would be plenty satisfied if the U.S. took serious non military actions to avoid the military options. The problem is we don't, and then get into military engagements, Libya would be a perfect example. We had no serious political or economic sanctions, and then get involved with military actions of a country which at the time posed no threat to the U.S. whatsoever. And it cost the U.S. lots of money to do so and unnecessarily dispersed our armed forces for a conflict that even though led to the end of khadafi, the region itself is in no way better off. The people of Libya are hardly better off, and whatever we have been currently doing in the region itself, Syrian people are not going to see a better life. Only the Syrian people have the power to make their lives better. We can offer an end to genocide and atrocities if asked. IF.... the actions of a nations government against its people do not in any way effect or threaten the United States and our assistance is not asked for, we should not spend our resources doing so.

NATO’s death squads responsible for Houla massacre: Analyst

A prominent political analyst says that NATO-backed armed gangs have been behind the recent killing of civilians in the Syrian town of Houla.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Dr. Webster Tarpley to further discuss the issue.

What follows is a rough transcript of the interview.

Press TV: Dr. Tarpley, the statements coming from the Western sources of the Houla massacre seem to be a mix of realities and speculations. I mean, we have the UN human rights office saying that during the massacre the government was shelling the neighborhood.

I mean, how could the military have been shelling the place if it had its own forces on the ground there?

Tarpley: I think you will find that the Western accounts are coherent with a major NATO war provocation. All honest observers know that the fundamental problem in Syria is the presence of NATO death squads that have been brought in, in large numbers, armed, fomented by the NATO states and this is now taking on a certain momentum of its own.

This is not the first time that the NATO people have tried to get a large scale massacre that they could try to inflame public opinion with.

However, I would say three on the ground eyewitness reports that I verified myself. First one comes from Fides; Fides is an Italian-Roman Catholic missionary News Service and they point to the fact that what the reality of the Houla massacre is that these fighters, right extremists, al-Qaeda or Salafi, whatever they were; came in and started targeting the Armenian Christians and the roman Catholics, the Franciscans and some others. This is one package.

Then we have a Belgian website with an author called Vox Clamantis which describes, in detail, how it was done that the hospital in Houla was burned down and the people that had been taking refuge in it were systematically massacred from up-close by the death squads not by the government.

Then, we have the Russian journalist operating in Syria, Anhar Kochneva. You can look at some of the work that she has put on the Internet where you have actual eyewitnesses speaking in Arabic and it is translated into Russian but there is also a text which you can translate into English if you want to or some other languages, which simulates the same thing.

They say that they are being oppressed by these death squads in effect and that they are angry with Kofi Annan and with Qatar for enabling this.

So if you put it all together.., there is yet a further element which is that there has been an attempt, it is gruesome and it is macabre, but to procure cadavers.

The NATO side, the death squads they sponsor have been attempting to build up a stock of cadavers that they could then use in this way.

The model for this of course is what Himmler, Heydrich and Gerbils did at the Gleiwitz video station in Germany on the Polish border to provoke war with Poland in August-September 1939.

This is exactly the same method that is now being used by NATO in Syria.

Press TV: With that said, who would benefit from killing women and innocent children in Syria?

...
PressTV - NATO?s death squads responsible for Houla massacre: Analyst

Sorry, double post.

00timh said:

Political and economic sanctions also need to be made far more effective. Condemnations are meaningless and not taken seriously if the peaceful options carry no weight. I myself would be plenty satisfied if the U.S. took serious non military actions to avoid the military options. The problem is we don't, and then get into military engagements, Libya would be a perfect example. We had no serious political or economic sanctions, and then get involved with military actions of a country which at the time posed no threat to the U.S. whatsoever. And it cost the U.S. lots of money to do so and unnecessarily dispersed our armed forces for a conflict that even though led to the end of khadafi, the region itself is in no way better off. The people of Libya are hardly better off, and whatever we have been currently doing in the region itself, Syrian people are not going to see a better life. Only the Syrian people have the power to make their lives better. We can offer an end to genocide and atrocities if asked. IF.... the actions of a nations government against its people do not in any way effect or threaten the United States and our assistance is not asked for, we should not spend our resources doing so.

Click to expand...

Do you really think Hillary and Obama give a damn about sanctions or negotiations on any subject?

They constantly arm and escalate from Yemen, Syria, Libya onward and are every bit the ruthless killers that Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz were.

Anyone who believes otherwise is lying to themselves.

Kane said:

Do you really think Hillary and Obama give a damn about sanctions or negotiations on any subject?

They constantly arm and escalate from Yemen, Syria, Libya onward and are every bit the ruthless killers that Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz were.

Anyone who believes otherwise is lying to themselves.

Click to expand...

But, but, Obama is a Democrat! He was supposed to have cut and run from Iraq (Hannity himself said he would, over and over again). He's supposed to be a peacenik, a soft hearted, soft headed liberal who doesn't understand what a dangerous world we liv...wait!

Could it be that the liberal stereotype is inaccurate?

Dittohead not! said:

But, but, Obama is a Democrat! He was supposed to have cut and run from Iraq (Hannity himself said he would, over and over again). He's supposed to be a peacenik, a soft hearted, soft headed liberal who doesn't understand what a dangerous world we liv...wait!

Could it be that the liberal stereotype is inaccurate?

Click to expand...

The NeoCons need a scapegoat, and the Dummycrat faithful need a problem solver, looks like their both chasing phantoms, yes.

Have Liberals realized their Democrat party is on the take, and set up to fail on purpose?

Syrian Rebels Responsible For Houla Massacre: Report

By John Rosenthal
National Review


"It was, in the words of U.N. special envoy Kofi Annan, the “tipping point” in the Syria conflict: a savage massacre of over 90 people, predominantly women and children, for which the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad was immediately blamed by virtually the entirety of the Western media. Within days of the first reports of the Houla massacre, the U.S., France, Great Britain, Germany, and several other Western countries announced that they were expelling Syria’s ambassadors in protest.

"But according to a new report in Germany’s leading daily, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), the Houla massacre was in fact committed by anti-Assad Sunni militants ..."

"According to the article’s sources, the massacre occurred after rebel forces attacked three army-controlled roadblocks outside of Houla. The roadblocks had been set up to protect nearby Alawi majority villages from attacks by Sunni militias. The rebel attacks provoked a call for reinforcements by the besieged army units. Syrian army and rebel forces are reported to have engaged in battle for some 90 minutes, during which time “dozens of soldiers and rebels” were killed."

http://www.countercurrents.org/rosenthal110612.htm

"According to the Lebanese newspaper Al-Manar (05 March 2012), the armed insurrection is led by a collection of Western-sponsored criminals, C.I.A. assets, Israeli terrorists, blackwater mercenaries and bribed army deserters. "

http://www.countercurrents.org/hassan030512.htm

http://www.countercurrents.org/janson270611.htm

To provoke a war in Syria, US and NATO use the same tactic - to create a massacre to instigate the hatred of public just like what have done in 911 attack.

Syria - The West`s Greatest Fear

By Dan Glazebrook
May 05, 2012http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2012/1096/op8.htm

The strategy was simple, clear, tried and tested. It had been used successfully not only against Libya, but also Kosovo (in 1999), and was rapidly underway in Syria. It was to run as follows: train proxies to launch armed provocations; label the state's response to these provocations as genocide; intimidate the UN Security Council into agreeing that "something must be done"; incinerate the army and any other resistance with fragmentation bombs and Hellfire missiles; and finally install a weak, compliant government to sign off new contracts and alliances drawn up in London, Paris and Washington, whilst the country tore itself apart.

Result: the heart torn out of the "axis of resistance" between Iran, Syria and Hizbullah, leaving Iran isolated and the West with a free hand to attack Iran without fear of regional repercussions.

Syria - The West`s Greatest Fear

Click to expand...

US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia have plotted bloodbath for years.



Image: Real genocidal atrocities during the "Arab Spring" occurred at the hands of NATO and its proxy sectarian terrorists. Pictured is Sirte, Libya, after NATO-armed rebels surrounded it, cut off power, water, food, and emergency aid, and allowed NATO to bombard it with daily airstrikes before a final orgy of death and destruction left its streets and facades crumbling. This is the "civilian protection" the UN and its enforcement arm NATO plan on bringing to Syria.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/US,_...bloo dbath_for_years./19775/0/38/38/Y/M.html

U.S. preaching democracy or hypocrisy?

"The so-called war on terror is just one of the reasons the West says it gets involved in conflicts abroad - the other is bringing democracy. But as the US and its allies criticize other countries for their lack of freedom and human rights, they're failing to notice matters closer to home, as Marina Portnaya explains."

The way I see it, the folks that used to just LOVE burning American flags and effigies, shouting, "Death to Israel! Death to America!" are now killing each other.

The solution is simple to me.

Go make a peanut butter sandwich and get a glass of milk. Pull up a chair and watch.

Captain America - you won't have to go very far to fight Nazis this time - they reside in DC in the three branches of your own govmnt.