Thursday, January 18, 2018


* A post Ghassan felt obliged to make after efforts failed in private to alert a budding new American analyst to the problems of the language and concepts he was using in a region wracked with sectarianism.  The screen shots of the discussions  are interesting and highly informative reading about the issue as well as showing examples of the problems the movement was encountering with some domineering solidarists who displayed towards the natives from the region a level of arrogance and disrespect  for their lived experiences and knowledge.

By Ghassan Kadi 23 September 2014 

This article, which was posted on many groups, I hate to say, is full of inaccuracies and incongruent analogies, but my comments are not going to focus on this.  

I quite frankly find it rather dangerous to use/coin the term "Shia Circle". As if it wasn't bad enough for the Islamists (Sunnis) to use the term "the Shiite Crescent" as a means of fear-mongering and a recruitment drive. Now, our friend and ally Andrew Korybko, who should know better, is using a much stronger term that implies encirlement and siege. If the Islamists find out that Western analysts are using such a term, they will use it as fodder and run with it. They will scream out "look at what Iran and the Shia are planning to do to us", and this will give them more reasons and excuses to cry out for taking up arms and push harder to incite new recruits to join the ranks of the IS and other organizations.

As a matter of fact, they are already making such outcries. They are already proclaiming that the Persians invented Chess and are the masters of trickery and military cruelty. They are already claiming that Lebanon is in the hands of Hezbollah and that Iran totally controls Syria and trying to control Iraq and that what we are witnessing now in Iraq is a counter Sunni revolution. Why in God's name does this very well-intentioned author want to give them more ammunition to their naïve argument?

Obviously, Andrew is unaware of what goes on within Sunni circles and how preachers brain-wash the minds of Sunni youths. He is unaware that his words can be used as weapons by the enemies of Syria. This is why, as Syrians, we have to make a vehement appeal to our Western friends and allies to make well-informed statements. We must plead to them to learn about our culture and how Arab/Muslim movers and shakers make their marks on opinions, how they win and lose hearts and minds, how and why Muslim youths are lured into the ranks of ISIL, and how certain words, well-intentioned as they may be, can have serious and very harmful outcomes.

To put things in perspective, in retrospect, the haphazard and ill-informed use of words that come from a position of lack of understanding of the Arabic/Muslim culture is not any different from say an Arab writer writing about American politics and referring to African Americans and to homosexuals in derogatory terms. What is it that makes Western analysts think that the Arab culture does not have its own sensitive issues that require knowledge of the culture?

It means so much to us to have supporters from all over the world, and we are greatly thankful to them. Some however are adamant not to listen to local voices that are trying to help them better understand the cultures they are dealing with. As a Syrian who is fairly senior in age, I find it is rather offensive when I see juvenile and irresponsible words used willy-nilly without any consideration to my culture, all in the name of support.

If some non-Arab supporters don't know what they are talking about and are not fully aware of the sensitivity of what they are saying, and more importantly, if they are too stubborn to accept that they need to learn, it would be much better off for us, if they (with respect) stay out of it.

See original link to post and discussion

Analyst Andrew Korybko posted this in the group and the discussion below the post follows after concerns raised about the term and concept of "Shia Circle".

Korybko introduced his article : "[h]ere is my latest article on "Syria’s Yemeni Opportunity and the Rise of the Shia Circle":

"The inclusion of the Houthis into the Yemeni government and their speedy and skillful demonstration of force and influence over the past week place Saudi Arabia on the strategic defensive. Not only do they have to contend with the prospect of an Iranian-friendly government on their southern Shiite border, but taken in a regional perspective, it appears as though Iran is cementing its Shia Circle. All of this bodes well for Syria, as the Saudis are now faced with a conundrum over whether to aggressively pursue regime change in Damascus and risk domestic Shia destabilization, or to negotiate with arch-rival Iran and reach an agreement to mitigate overall tensions."

Screen shots of post for the record

 Discussion Continued...

NEVER TO BE TRUSTED AGAIN. By Ghassan Kadi 26 July 2014

26 July 2014

Once a traitor, then never to be trusted.

Khaled Mishaal did a very dirty back flip on Syria 3 years ago, and he should never be trusted again. The same goes for Ismail Haniyye.

It is sad that the fate of the people of Gaza is in the hands of Hamas. Hamas as a whole cannot be trusted anymore, not after it turned its back on its friends (Syria, Hezbollah and Iran) and shook hands with the Qataris.

Now, that Hamas feels cornered again, it is trying to flirt with Iran and Hezbollah. This should not be accepted.

There are certainly some good elements in Hamas, but unless the leadership dumps many faces, especially Mishaal and Haniyye, then their current stand can only be seen as opportunistic.

Hamas is using Gazans as humans shields and offering them on the sacrifice alter. They do not seem to care about how many get killed. What they want is not simply the liberation of Palestine. They want their own version of it, under their own rule and conditions.

Finally, I would like to ask this simple question. How is it that Hamas was able to dig tunnels that connect it with Egypt and even Israel and they are unable to build bomb shelters for Gazans?


By Ghassan Kadi
29 May 2014

If we were to analyze the Syrian presidential election, we should stop and look at the controversy it is creating and the Western propaganda that are downplaying the event. In doing so, we must feel at liberty to have a closer look at the Western system that puts itself head and shoulders above any other political system in the world.

The West has bamboozled the world with terms such as Free Economy, Democracy, and so go forth, and gave descriptions to other nations that are not on par different descriptions of inferior ranks that go all the way from Second/Third World countries to being part of the “Axis of Evil”.

Western Democracy has not been given the test of universality of application. For it to be a universal model, it must have what it takes to make work under all socio-economic conditions. In reality, it has only been put to the test in nations that have already “reached” the so-called “First World Status”.

For the last two centuries or so, the West did not “need” any major change, an ideological coup to make life better for its people; and hence democracy, revised versions inherited from the Roman or Westminster systems worked fine. For the West that had usurped and plundered other nations, created for itself an economy of abundance, it is easy to pontificate and proclaim that it had found the perfect system, and then to have the audacity to say that the rest of the world must adopt it.

Now here is a question. Is Western style democracy able to make huge changes when such changes are warranted?

To answer this question, we will have to watch Europe and see if Western Democracy is going to be able to deal with the declining economic power of different nations in Europe. For better or for worse, we have already seen a taste of such scenarios in Greece, but this is perhaps the tip of the ice berg.

In saying this, the USA is not far behind. According to some economic analysts, the American economy is far worse than that of Europe and even Greece. It had only been kept afloat by short-term measures such as “financial easing” (ie printing money), measures that will at best push away the fix, only to make it much harder to achieve. In this instance, the Obama administration knows what hole it is digging, but it is only making short-term measures that make it look good and popular.

The bottom line here is that major decisions of governess which imply sacrifices by individuals for the sake of public good are often taken with popular disdain. Many people think about now and today. What is in it for me? How is this new government policy going to affect my business and my family? It is invariably on such individualistic bases that Western voters go to the polls.

This is why in Western democracies, politicians present hope and promise wealth and affluence. This is how they win votes and get elected.

Wars such as WWI and WWII did not last long enough to put Western Democracy under the long-term test of duress, neither did the Great Depression. Citizens of poor nations constantly live under standards that are well below those of the Great Depression.

When President Hafez Assad assumed power after the “Corrective Movement” in 1970 and had this followed by a referendum, Syria had a multitude of huge problems. It needed a total overhaul and gigantic nation-building programs.

If President Assad had to deal with holding on to power the Western style, he would have had to either make false promises, or alternatively go to his constituency and say something to this effect:

     “Our economy is in ruins, our army needs huge amounts of funds to be modernized and well equipped. We need to implement extremely tough economic measures. Most of you will be worse off for a long time before it gets better. We have to ban imports of all luxury goods. We must dedicate 80% of our budget to the army. Above all, all citizens must understand that their nation is in a state of war, they must fight sectarianism and fundamentalism, unite behind their leader, put their trust in his judgement, re and re-elect him until he gets the job done, and take it as it comes. And by the way, a ban on banana import will also be put in place….sorry, but if you want to eat bananas, you will have to learn how to grow them”.

In reality, these were the challenges that President Hafez Assad had to address, and the longevity of his presidency was the guarantee that the reforms were not to be derailed by some smart jump-up politician who would eventually come and promise the earth just to get himself elected.

In simple terms, Western-style democracy where nation-building is essential does not work, especially when nations are in a state of war like Syria is. After all, Western leaders have two major concerns, how to get elected, and how to get re-elected, and they do this at any cost, just to appease their voters, treating public interest with least concern.

The West will soon find itself in a dilemma in which aspiring politicians are going to find it very hard to get elected, unless they capitalize on rising emotions such as fundamentalism and radicalism. We are in fact witnessing beginnings to such trends in Europe. The Ultra-Right groups, including the Tea Party in the USA are aware of the loophole in the system and are using it to their favour.

If democracy is going to work well, it will have to be based on what is best for the majority, not on cumulative majorities of private agendas. Western democracy has been based on the latter, and its failings were fairly invisible because it ruled during times of economic strength. This is changing, and the West will soon either have to drop the Democracy that it took to the world with B-52’s attached to it, or sit back and allow it (Western Democracy) to turn into a monster that will put extreme radicals in power.

To be continued

EHUD BARAK By Ghassan Kadi 27 November 2012

By Ghassan Kadi
27 November 2012 ·

Ehud Barak, like Moshe Dayan before, was once one of Israel’s greatest war heroes. As a matter of fact, he is the most highly decorated soldier of Israel.

But this entity that calls itself Israel has, among other things, a culture of arrogance and ingratitude that is not only practiced with Palestinians, the rest of the world, but also outpours to its own people.

Before Barak, Moshe Dayan gave Israel its greatest ever military victory in June 67. He became a household hero and his portraits decorated many walls. But from a hero to a villain he turned in the eyes of the Israelis when he failed to produce similar results in 1973. He was forced to retire in total indignity.

Ironically, just hours before announcing his retirement, he was still looking for face-saving and said that the next battle with Gaza will take months. Soon enough, he must have realized that his hour is up and he has probably learnt from his predecessor and decided to quit before getting subjected to more humiliation.

Barak rose to prominence when he was put in charge of “Operation Spring of Youth” in Beirut in April 73 to assassinate PLO leaders in the opulent Verdun St.

However, back in 1973, Lebanon was free game, and the infamous assassination could have even been done by an insider’s job. There was no need to plot a sophisticated plan that involved navy ships, Zodiac boats, and on-ground Mossad agents. But at that time, Israel wanted to intimidate and prove that it can penetrate any Arab capital and send its own men to assassinate any person of its choosing.

But some much has changed in the last four decades or so. The hero who was able to tell his people that he was able to reach any enemy anywhere, was no longer able to tell them that he could defend them from any enemy anywhere.

The war hero who hid behind a skirt, cross dressing like a woman during the Beirut operation has tried later to hide behind the Iron Dome Shield. The skirt proved to be mightier than the shield after all.

WHY DO I DEFEND SYRIA By Dr Omar Thaher 29 January 2012 Translated by Intibah and Ghassan Kadi

29 January 2012
This is an article that I read approximately 2 weeks ago written by an Iraqi scholar (Dr. Omar Thaher). I was very touched by this article and decided to translate it into English and did not get the chance to do this till now. Better late than never.
Author: Iraqi Scholar Dr. Omar Thaher
Translated by: Ghassan and Intibah Wakeup (Kadi)

Why Do I Defend Syria ?

It is very wrong for anyone to assume that those who are currently defending Syria are necessarily supporters of Bashar Al Assad and that they want him to be president for life and to later pass on the presidency to his son. Quite the contrary, some of those defenders could be very staunch critics of the regime but, not from the perspective of Syria’s own Ahmed Jalabi (ie Burhan Ghalyoun), but rather from the perspective of care and respect of the Syrian people and a conviction that the people deserve to have a government that gives its people their rightful place in humanity. Some of those defenders may well be some of those who have in the past had a taste of the harshness of the regime. The writer of this article is a man who ran away from Syria in 1984 three years after escaping to Syria from Iraq, and did not manage to return to Syria for 22 years and is still unable to go back to Iraq.

I cannot forget the “hospitality” of Section 279 and what I endured in 1982. It was a reminder of the previous hospitality of Security Police in Baghdad. But that was the tip of the iceberg and I often wondered that the timing of a volcanic eruption is only a question of time as the Syrian citizen, just like his Iraqi compatriot suffers daily from the atrocities of the “Defence Brigades”, the Intelligence (Mukhabarat) that are so intimidating for the visiting tourist, let alone the residing citizen.

When I returned to Syria in 2006 it was not because I missed the hospitality of section 279 but because I miss some family members that I haven’t seen for over a quarter of a century and could not reunite with them except for in Syria. How often after my return did I contemplate writing to President Bashar Al Assad warning him that Syria in 2006 is the same one into which Eli Cohen infiltrated over four decades ago and that Israel could smuggle into Syria anything including hydrogen bombs on a daily basis without having to pay more than $10 by the courier as a bribe to the customs police. Isn’t this sadly the case? Otherwise, how did this huge arsenal of weapons reach the terrorists today in a manner than allows them to wreak fear and havoc in so many areas and even challenging the army itself?

The Syrian revolution came a bit too late. This is fine. But it came unlike other popular uprisings. It is coming from Mosques and not from universities or factories. There is nothing wrong with this either, what really matters is that the masses need to rise in order to earn with their own hands what is rightfully theirs. Yes, we must emphasise the concept of earning with ones own hands what is rightfully ours. In this respect I pledged my heart, my soul and my pen and all that I possessed to support anyone who struggled against Saddam Hussein in the past.

I did this because for years on end my friends and I dreamt of an Iraq without Saddam, only to spend many years later lamenting in pain because in hindsight we did not know back then that every word we said and every letter we wrote against Saddam and every drop of blood we shed to get rid of him was only enriching the argument of the enemies of Iraq, beginning with Israel and America and not forgetting the Sheikhs and the Kings of the Gulf, not forgetting Ahmed Chalabi, Iyad Allawi, Nouri Al Maliki, Tarek Al Hashemi and their cohorts. Saddam has gone but what dawn has risen on us? Or should we say what night has fallen upon us? Saddam was bad? But Iraq used to be beautiful and great, secure and advanced and a country with a powerful State and stature and an army; but we did not see this.

We did not know back then that despite everything, we had a country and that rulers can come and go but the country is here to stay. And of course we did not know that opposition groups were betraying their people and their country; even our communist leaders repeated the slogan “free country and happy people” until it came out of our ears whilst they were salivating under the CIA payroll. They betrayed the country and sold out their people and blessed the occupation, and eventually worked under the auspices of Bremer. We wanted Saddam to go, but they wanted Iraq to go, and it did. We wanted a popular revolution to topple Saddam or at least a military coup to get rid of him, but they were preparing for a destructive occupation, sectarianism and dreadful deaths. Is history not repeating itself in Syria today? I say this whilst I insist that Bashar Al Assad is not a bad person even though he did not have the right to inherit his position and/or to pass it on to his children.

Our national assets were taken away from the hands of the Saddam regime, but in whose hands are they now? Definitely not in ours. It will take only a fool to repeat the Iraqi experience elsewhere, and a fool is the Syrian citizen who spends a single moment of his life and an ounce of his energy in fighting Bashar Al Assad for as long as he doesn’t know that if he removes Al Assad, God forbid, nothing will be achieved other than turning Syria into a furnace, devouring its people and an open slather for crime and do I need to say what Iraq has been transformed to? Perhaps we were excused because we were taken by surprise because events were changing overnight, turning Iraq into the target of the assault rather than Saddam. But the Syrian citizen of today has no excuse at all because he can clearly see that the finances and the weapons that are supporting his “revolution” are coming from the rotten Gulf rulers, and hence this revolution can only be for their own benefit and how can what benefits them be of any good for Syria?

It is only a total moron and a fool who puts the assets of Syria in the hands of the rulers of the Gulf, the same hands that carry the blood of the children of Iraq and of Libya. We say there is corruption in Syria and a million unemployed. This is a tragedy indeed but whoever cannot find work today may find work tomorrow after those beasts return to their altars. A million unemployed is far better than a million dead and a million widows and four million orphans and six million homeless and scattered all over the world, and a million cancer victims and a million deformed new born, deformed by the illegal weapons used by the Americans and paid for by the Saudi rulers. Yes, my Syrian brother, this is what the servant of the Americans and Israelis want for you, and this is what the master of regression and backwardness in Qatar is promising you.

And since when my dear Syrian Citizens were the mentally retarded King of Saudi Arabia and the Prince of Qatar so caring about your freedom or the freedom of others? Those people have no conscience and no integrity. We turned Iraq for eight long years into an eastern gate, protecting the nation from Iran and we paid for this with the blood of hundreds of thousands of our young men and we spent every Dinar in our Treasury to protect those apes from Iran. And what would have been our reward had we won? They stole our oil and they flooded the international market with cheap oil to destroy the Iraqi economy, then they allowed half a million American and Israeli soldiers to land on the sacred land of Prophets and they financed two wars against Iraq to return it to the Stone Age. And they danced on the corpses of our fallen ones, the Dance of the Swords just like predecessors did on the day of Ohod; the day they danced and ate the livers of the fallen ones. And why? Because their hearts and minds still rot with ignorance “jahaliyyeh”. And why would you think that what they want for Syria is different to what they wanted for Iraq? They, my dear Syrian citizens want nothing for you except war and destruction.

Despite its corruption and corrupt ones, Syria is beautiful, gracious, great, civilized, proud, independent, united, free and it enjoys the dignity of the lion (Assad). And if you want to know the beauty of Syria you have to read the writings of Oussama Fawzi because he covers more about Syria than other contemporary writers and portrays how wonderful Syria is.

You say corruption? You are right. But, who is going to salvage you from this corruption? The old man of Hijaz who is so rotten to the core that it has penetrated into his bone marrow? These people do not have in store for you any freedom or dignity or privileges. All they have in store for you is nothing but traps, blood, sectarianism, destruction, poverty and humiliation. They believe that they can humiliate people with their dirty money and they have indeed bought the traitors of Syria. Those primitive Bedouins have the love of killing and bloodshed running in their veins and they are envious of any Arab country that has true civilization and culture, that has art and literature and intellectuals and this is why they do all they can to destroy Syria and deliver it into the hands of ruthless tyrants.

I defend Syria because I do not want to see the assets of the Syrian people going out of its hands and into the hands of rotten scoundrels who have a grudge against Syria and/or some gangs under the pay of Sarkozy.

I defend Syria because I love Syria and its people and I do not want to see another Iraq getting amputated and having its people getting killed right, left and centre in the streets, mosques or churches.

I defend Syria because I do not want to see American or French tanks in the streets of Damascus with Israeli journalists covering the news freely, reporting scenes of falling statues of Assad with the intention of having them replaced with statues of apes. This did happen in Iraq.

I defend Syria because I do not want to hear that Jewish extremists have come to swim in Barada River, claiming that they have been promised to do so as they are doing now at the River Tigris.
I defend Syria because I see in it the Grenada of today, the last Arabic bastion of dignity. If it falls, God forbid, that will be the end of Arabs.

Syrian brothers, do not allow Netanyahu to enter Damascus disguised with Saudi head dress and a Qatari sandal.

Monday, December 25, 2017

BANDAR'S GAMBLE By Ghassan Kadi 1 September 2013

By Ghassan Kadi
1 September 2013

Bandar is playing a very dangerous gamble and a game that has perhaps a few weeks to either succeed or go down and bring him down with it.

Let us forget about today’s politics for a while and wind back the clock thirty years, the time when the USA created Al Qaida and supported Bin Laden to fight the USSR in Afghanistan. At that time Bandar was instrumental in this creation of Al Qaida, then a US proxy and the Saudi Ambassador in Washington. That was all during the Saudi/Bin Laden honeymoon.

Whether or not the politics and the logistics of supporting Islamic fundamentalists is something that is transparent or fundamentalist by nature, there is little doubt that amongst the ranks of fundamentalists there are many individuals, let alone would-be leaders, who are prepared to pull rank and change alliances if and when they see a diversion from fundamentalist Islam and its agenda. This was what Bin Laden did later on with Al-Saud and he became a very staunch opponent of the Saudi royal family to the extent that back in the early 2000’s, there was a lot of upheaval in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It was Al Qaeda-based. There was a huge uproar against the regime and the Saudi royal family. The Islamists were asking for reform and some radical ones were even asking for the removal of the royal family.

Love them or hate them, most Islamist fighters are indoctrinated, and they genuinely believe that they are following the commands of God.

Bandar understands well how the mind of fundamentalists operate, and with this knowledge, he set himself two targets; thwarting off the Al Qaeda danger within Saudi Arabia, and building an army of indoctrinated mercenaries. To do this, in the eyes of the Islamists, he had to become the new Osama Bin Laden.

I wasn’t an easy task for Bandar to assume this role, but he played it well, even appearing to be the anti-royal within the ranks of the royals. The removal of Bin Laden from the scene gave Bandar a golden opportunity, after all the Islamists needed a new surrogate financier. This is how he managed to round up Islamist support all the way Tunisia to Chechnya to Malaysia.

Love him or hate him, Bin Laden was a highly indoctrinated man. He had his principles that he lived by and died for. Although Bin Laden put his hands in the hands of the Americans in the early 80’s, his intention was to “use” them to fight the then common enemy, the USR.

On the other hand, Bandar’s rise to power cannot be seen without understanding his close alliances with the USA. Dubbed Bandar Bush, Bandar has close friendships with the Bushes and many neo-cons. His anti-Iran stance is also mirrored by that of his American friends.

Credit must be given to Bandar for being able thus far to find a way for an unholy alliance between arch-enemies; the USA and the Islamists. He has so far been able to promise both of them victory against a common enemy; Iran, setting aside the animosities they for each other.

This is a promise that Bandar wasn’t able to fulfil. He was hoping for an early victory in Syria; a victory that would have appeased both unlikely partners, and before cracks start appearing in this partnership.

As the clock ticks ever towards choosing between Al Qaida/Islamists and America, Bandar is more intense on serving his obsession and fear of Iran at any cost and irrespective of what means he uses.
Before too long, and as the forthcoming war on Syria unfolds and as Bandar’s support for America becomes more evident and, as the American intervention in Syria finds itself at more odds with having to support Islamists in Syria in order for them to choose between their own interests and saving Bandar’s face, Bandar is going to find himself in a very tight spot. He will find himself in a very difficult position trying to be able to continue to convince the indoctrinated Islamists that he is still their new Osama bin Laden.

Regardless of the outcome of the war in Syria, it is only a question of time before Bandar’s current allies, the USA and the Islamists find their interests at odds. The more America gets bogged down in Syria, and the longer the battle for Syria rages, the weaker the Bandar alliance will grow. As it is already, Obama finds himself in an embarrassing situation, to say the least, intending to fight along Al-Qaeda.

When Bandar eventually runs out of tricks to pull and finds himself having to choose between the Islamists and the USA, he will have to take off his Bin Laden cloak and choose the latter because the USA is his “real friend”. He treats the Islamists under his belt as tokens that he possesses, not realizing that the Americans despise his guts, do not consider him a friend, and only see him as a token as well. They regard him as the rich fool who hates their enemies, and they want to use him to do a lot of dirty work they are unable to do themselves.

When Bandar starts to overtly favour the USA against the Islamists, the hand that he once fed will turn around and strangle him. He will find himself unable to control the Islamists within Saudi Arabia who are very anti royal family and who are intent to bring his royal family down. This time around, the conflict between the house of Saud and the Islamists will be much more intense than those of a decade ago. The feud will be further fuelled by Bandar’s let down leaving the Islamists feeling that they have been deceived.

This will be a time of Bandar’s reckoning and for him to reap the fruit of the seed he has planted.

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.
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.

*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.