Breaking: International community including Arab states recognize permanent Assad rule of Syria

[Azizam]

Sunnis seek self determination through killing unarmed civilians, raping innocent women including 6-7 year olds, destroying historical artifacts?

 

[Hiptullha]

So now murderers, rapists, cut throats and slave traders are 'muslims'?

Murderers? Rapists?
You seem to be talking about the Assad regime but then your nationality makes me wonder why you'd have that kind of opinion.
When it comes to murder, the Assad regime beats any militant group in Syria. Hands down. Rape? I think it's silly to think they'd spend their time murdering thousands of innocents and not rape a few women along the way.

http://www.vocativ.com/news/224151/syria-government-assad-kills-more-civilians-than-isis
Islamic State has killed many Syrians, but Assad’s forces have killed more - The Washington Post
Assad's government still kills way more civilians than ISIS - Business Insider

Aside from murdering, these guys are pretty good at recreating Nazi death camps from what we can see from pictures leaked by a Syrian defector.
Syria defector's photos depict 'systematic torture and killing' of detainees - World - CBC News
Not that I'm giving the Assad regime full credit for this, because they had some outside help.
A Notorious Nazi War Criminal Reportedly Died In Syria Four Years Ago

 

[bozorgmehr]

Murderers? Rapists?
You seem to be talking about the Assad regime but then your nationality makes me wonder why you'd have that kind of opinion.
When it comes to murder, the Assad regime beats any militant group in Syria. Hands down. Rape? I think it's silly to think they'd spend their time murdering thousands of innocents and not rape a few women along the way.

http://www.vocativ.com/news/224151/syria-government-assad-kills-more-civilians-than-isis
Islamic State has killed many Syrians, but Assad’s forces have killed more - The Washington Post
Assad's government still kills way more civilians than ISIS - Business Insider

Aside from murdering, these guys are pretty good at recreating Nazi death camps from what we can see from pictures leaked by a Syrian defector.
Syria defector's photos depict 'systematic torture and killing' of detainees - World - CBC News
Not that I'm giving the Assad regime full credit for this, because they had some outside help.
A Notorious Nazi War Criminal Reportedly Died In Syria Four Years Ago

Yes genius, the use of violence has always been the prerogative of the state... and will always be as long as there will be organized states. You do the same thing in the US, and the end result will be the same... you'll end of up dead.

Look, I know that at your capacity you need to see things in black and white for an easy contrast. But I never said Assad is a liberal democrat and a champion of political rights for all Syrians. He is a dictator. He is a tyrant. He is a strongman. That means his regime imprisoned people, tortured people, killed people.. But so did Gamal Abdenasser. So did Saddam on a much larger scale, and so did every other leader of the Arab world, with very few exceptions... What does that tell you? There's a reason why certain societies have a tendency for allowing dictatorships. And that doesn't change at the throw of a switch. And it doesn't change because you pick up arms and kill people. And it certainly will never change as long as the alternative is far, far more brutal, restrictive and dictatorial than the original piece of sh!t. It will take time.... a long time.

So at this point in time, you have a choice. You can choose a nepotistic, authoritarian regime, that limits political freedom, but nonetheless allows its population a great degree of personal freedoms and provides them with a modern and secular education that will be more instrumental for future transformation that anything else. Or you can have a
Taliban style of government, where education will be whatever the illiterate sheikh feels like and women will be the property of men and those who disobey will be brought to city centers to have their heads chopped off, stoned, crucified or worse.... Now you will probably choose the latter, but don't be surprised if most modern humans disagree with you

 

[Madali]

View attachment 268286



This was my narrative of the positions of the international community and I stood up and kept with my words aggressively. Word for word, I said the whole world sides with Assad. I said even Turkey and Saudi Arabia do too. I said world supports Iran in Syria and I was saying many, many times that the world will declare war on the rebels because they consist of self determined Sunni Muslims. Yet everyone was accusing me of painting false picture. Here today, the liars are exposed and the only truthful person among us(me) is absolutely accurate in his analysis.

From now on I better not hear an Iranian or Shia clown telling us US is conflicting with Iran on Syria or any of their bullshit conspiracies that US supports rebels when whole coalition of nations all oppose rebels and recent meeting clearly proves that that the government structure of Assad regime will remain intact. And that cease fire will take place in some areas, except the areas where 'terrorist' groups reside(pretty much all rebel controlled areas) will be targeted until self determined Sunni's are defeated. Once again the Shia and Arab regimes declare war on Muslims and yet you have idiot Sunni's still supporting them. Shia's have whole West on their side while defaming Sunni's 24/7 as 'agents of Master America'.

@Bratva @dearhypocrite @Luffy 500 @JUBA

US and Iran are best friends and the latter has been heavily sanctioned just to fool Muslim Arab Sunnis. Also, the war against Saddam was just a Hollywood movie, in reality everyone was drinking whiskey.

In Syria's case, the arms and support oppositions got were from Sunni Martians because every Earth country were BFF with Assad.

Your level of political understanding is embarrassing.

 

[Siavash]

View attachment 268286



This was my narrative of the positions of the international community and I stood up and kept with my words aggressively. Word for word, I said the whole world sides with Assad. I said even Turkey and Saudi Arabia do too. I said world supports Iran in Syria and I was saying many, many times that the world will declare war on the rebels because they consist of self determined Sunni Muslims. Yet everyone was accusing me of painting false picture. Here today, the liars are exposed and the only truthful person among us(me) is absolutely accurate in his analysis.

From now on I better not hear an Iranian or Shia clown telling us US is conflicting with Iran on Syria or any of their bullshit conspiracies that US supports rebels when whole coalition of nations all oppose rebels and recent meeting clearly proves that that the government structure of Assad regime will remain intact. And that cease fire will take place in some areas, except the areas where 'terrorist' groups reside(pretty much all rebel controlled areas) will be targeted until self determined Sunni's are defeated. Once again the Shia and Arab regimes declare war on Muslims and yet you have idiot Sunni's still supporting them. Shia's have whole West on their side while defaming Sunni's 24/7 as 'agents of Master America'.

@Bratva @dearhypocrite @Luffy 500 @JUBA

If you said so you were on the right side of history and good for you! All the points in the joint statement was something that Iran was saying the past 4 years! Line by line is exactly what Zarif and all the Iranian diplomats argued and KSA was opposing. The bold text is what is added to Iranian stance presumably by USA or Europeans.

1. Syria’s unity, independence, territorial integrity, and secular character are fundamental.
2. State institutions will remain intact.
3. The rights of all Syrians, regardless of ethnicity or religious denomination, must be protected.
4. It is imperative to accelerate all diplomatic efforts to end the war.
5. Humanitarian access will be ensured throughout the territory of Syria, and the participants will increase support for internally displaced persons, refugees, and their host countries.
6. Da'esh, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the U.N. Security Council, and further, as agreed by the participants, must be defeated.
7. Pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communique and U.N. Security Council Resolution 2118, the participants invited the U.N. to convene representatives of the Government of Syria and the Syrian opposition for a political process leading to credible, inclusive, non-sectarian governance, followed by a new constitution and elections. These elections must be administered under U.N. supervision to the satisfaction of the governance and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, free and fair, with all Syrians, including the diaspora, eligible to participate.
8. This political process will be Syrian led and Syrian owned, and the Syrian people will decide the future of Syria.
9. The participants together with the United Nations will explore modalities for, and implementation of, a nationwide ceasefire to be initiated on a date certain and in parallel with this renewed political process.

Regarding the USA stance. USA changed his stance multiple times. It is not that USA included Iran or sided with Iran. It is more like USA had no choice with the events on the ground and the Iran-Russia axis on the issue. When you do not have any other way to go due to both KSA and Turkey incompetence in regional affairsit is called in chess terminology Epaulette mate where the king has no moves due to being restricted by his own rooks! and the rooks in this case are the KSA and Turkey! That is not siding but actually humiliating acceptance of the truth and honestly it is rather late! Losing strategically in ME means you lose a lot of soft power and that is not good for business there! So stop claiming USA sided with Iran. It had no choice actually. USA partners like the Jubair spoil rat and Ottoman wannabe made a lot of political mistakes that assured correct Iran-Russia move would hand in victory to them.

From Iran stand point this and in two weeks what will happen is a victory for the moderate side and Zarif doctrine. KSA will either humiliatingly accept defeat (they preparing to present stronger case by ending Yemen strikes) and move forward with the 9 points as is (or at least grab some of their supporters from point #6) or will show its immaturity and for the first time go solo and oppose international will and be a villain which they are. In two weeks we will see another victory for the world on this arena! But be clear it is not USA that handed it over. It is Iran that allowed USA to save face and be a player in this lost case of Neo Cons. Despite the wil lof KSA and their money they would have eventually lose the battle in the Iran-Russia coalition and their allies in FSA and Nosra front would have been terminated and then they would have no say at all. Zarif and Lavrov do not want a costly game and are happy with the minimum. Zarif believes in Win-win situation were the victory is long lasting which is also better for Syrians and the region. USA, Iran and Russia with the grace of Russians and the Iranians and the gains they had made by the JCPOA allowed USA to be a player again and avoid unnecessary conflict which is good for nobody except KSA and the hardliners on both sides.
KSA with its recent interviews seems not knowing what is happening. At least Jubair is not that competent to be able to analyse what stance they are at and still is babbling the same rhetoric which has no basis on the ground. UK and USA will coach him in two weeks and have to find a better stance or the next two weeks would be a humiliating defeat for KSA juvenile minister sitting with men of diplomacy. We will see. two weeks is a long time.

 

[Madali]

Yes genius, the use of violence has always been the prerogative of the state... and will always be as long as there will be organized states. You do the same thing in the US, and the end result will be the same... you'll end of up dead.

Look, I know that at your capacity you need to see things in black and white for an easy contrast. But I never said Assad is a liberal democrat and a champion of political rights for all Syrians. He is a dictator. He is a tyrant. He is a strongman. That means his regime imprisoned people, tortured people, killed people.. But so did Gamal Abdenasser. So did Saddam on a much larger scale, and so did every other leader of the Arab world, with very few exceptions... What does that tell you? There's a reason why certain societies have a tendency for allowing dictatorships. And that doesn't change at the throw of a switch. And it doesn't change because you pick up arms and kill people. And it certainly will never change as long as the alternative is far, far more brutal, restrictive and dictatorial than the original piece of sh!t. It will take time.... a long time.

So at this point in time, you have a choice. You can choose a nepotistic, authoritarian regime, that limits political freedom, but nonetheless allows its population a great degree of personal freedoms and provides them with a modern and secular education that will be more instrumental for future transformation that anything else. Or you can have a
Taliban style of government, where education will be whatever the illiterate sheikh feels like and women will be the property of men and those who disobey will be brought to city centers to have their heads chopped off, stoned, crucified or worse.... Now you will probably choose the latter, but don't be surprised if most modern humans disagree with you

I agree completely and I wish there were more people who posted like this in this forum. We need to move away from emotional, black & white understanding of the situation.

The original post in this thread is a perfect example of that. It doesn't take into account the hundreds of different variables and multiple complications, and ever shifting political circumstances, and simplifies it to a Good vs Evil Lord of the Rings movie.

 

[Hiptullha]

Look, I know that at your capacity you need to see things in black and white for an easy contrast. But I never said Assad is a liberal democrat and a champion of political rights for all Syrians. He is a dictator. He is a tyrant. He is a strongman. That means his regime imprisoned people, tortured people, killed people.. But so did Gamal Abdenasser. So did Saddam on a much larger scale, and so did every other leader of the Arab world, with very few exceptions... What does that tell you? There's a reason why certain societies have a tendency for allowing dictatorships. And that doesn't change at the throw of a switch. And it doesn't change because you pick up arms and kill people. And it certainly will never change as long as the alternative is far, far more brutal, restrictive and dictatorial than the original piece of sh!t. It will take time.... a long time.

Are we in Kindergarten? Really? Just because the other dictator decided to infringe upon the rights of citizens gives your pet dictator the right to set up Nazi-style death camps and drop barrel bombs on the civilian populace? It's all well because his opposition is worse than him, right? Jesus Christ, you're talking about me looking in black and white while dividing the Syrian Civil War into two sides. Either you're a secular and progressive Assadist or a Jihadi Sunni terrorist in the opposition. This is Bush-style thinking, you know.

So at this point in time, you have a choice. You can choose a nepotistic, authoritarian regime, that limits political freedom, but nonetheless allows its population a great degree of personal freedoms and provides them with a modern and secular education that will be more instrumental for future transformation that anything else.

You mean an unsustainable government which will always lead to some sort of violence. A quick look at the other dictatorships in the Middle East show that every strongman and dictator in the country has ended up getting overthrown and being replaced by either anarchy, a group of fundies or another strongman. Assad's own father faced an uprising in the '80s, to which he responded more or less the same way Assad did. These type of governments are unsustainable and will only end up slaughtering millions and dying out leading to anarchy. They're not a viable option. Sorry.

 

[500]

I follow this war since very beginning and I clearly see the pattern: when rebels advance US cuts supplies, when loyalists advance US allows some TOWs in. So the war would last forever.

 

[ultron]

I follow this war since very beginning and I clearly see the pattern: when rebels advance US cuts supplies, when loyalists advance US allows some TOWs in. So the war would last forever.

TOWs will not save mujahids. Only Patriots, counter battery radars, Paladins can make a difference.

BTW you were claiming Russia won't bomb Golan. They did that.

 

[The SiLent crY]

Yeah sure buddy, before Russia coalition was already created which bombed many rebel groups besides Assad. And the same rhetoric which is now official positions in today's meetings was heard. It's very obvious where the world stands. Iranians and Shia's are playing game of deception. Shia's intentionally paint different narrative of US aids Sunni's, Shias are US enemies in order to spread Iranian influence in the region and justify the targeting of Arab states. In reality Shia's and West are top allies in the region, everyone can see that. The only liars who say otherwise are Shia propagandists.

Either way you can get the whole world on your side and bark with your propaganda but you will never defeat the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen are ready for everything and if escalation is committed against righteous angels of God then the whole world will escalate and Shia , Zionist and Zionist-Christian terrorists will get a taste of their own medicine.

The cowardly coalition of shits leaked this intentionally to test popular response of Sunni Muslims. Because these shits know if they go public with these positions what will happen to them. Instead they bark about 'differences' yet you can't see any reflection of those 'differences' on ground. If they are brave men make this public accord and state what it is in this document.

Stop your fucked up nonesense for God's sake .

Your harted towards Shias is adorable . Unlike Sunni states that are slaves of the west and Zions , Shia groups have paid dearly fighting the west and their allies such as Zions , their puppets and above all their proxy groups .

You called 30 years of Hezbollah's struggle against Zions a show to promote it's position in region ( in previous posts ) and now call 4 decades of hostility between Iran and the west a show to spread Shia influence in region while Iran and Iranians could have ruled and fucked the whole region from Turkey to all the tiny , retarded arab states in region by sticking to the west like pre revolution era but instead they got themselves fucked by being anti west for four decades .

This is really frustrating to read such posts and compare them with the reality in the world .

 

[raptor22]

View attachment 268286



This was my narrative of the positions of the international community and I stood up and kept with my words aggressively. Word for word, I said the whole world sides with Assad. I said even Turkey and Saudi Arabia do too. I said world supports Iran in Syria and I was saying many, many times that the world will declare war on the rebels because they consist of self determined Sunni Muslims. Yet everyone was accusing me of painting false picture. Here today, the liars are exposed and the only truthful person among us(me) is absolutely accurate in his analysis.

From now on I better not hear an Iranian or Shia clown telling us US is conflicting with Iran on Syria or any of their bullshit conspiracies that US supports rebels when whole coalition of nations all oppose rebels and recent meeting clearly proves that that the government structure of Assad regime will remain intact. And that cease fire will take place in some areas, except the areas where 'terrorist' groups reside(pretty much all rebel controlled areas) will be targeted until self determined Sunni's are defeated. Once again the Shia and Arab regimes declare war on Muslims and yet you have idiot Sunni's still supporting them. Shia's have whole West on their side while defaming Sunni's 24/7 as 'agents of Master America'.

@Bratva @dearhypocrite @Luffy 500 @JUBA

Your political understanding of current situation in the ME has amazed me .... really what is the color of sky in your world? From the first day Iran called out for election , political solution and also fighting against terrorism in Syria ... it was some bunch of Arab dictators Turkey and western countries which were beating the drum of war by supporting and supplying terrorists in Syria ... I don't know why Shia doesn't enjoy whole West on their side in Yemen, or during Iran-Iraq war when all Sunni and western countries were supplying Iraq with latest modern weapons including CW, or back in 1990 when Shia uprising of Shia in south of Iraq were cracked down by the US green light ? or poverty and oppression imposed on Shia Muslim in south of Lebanon for decades ?in Bahrain? Iran have whole West on their side while has been targeted by toughest sanctioned ever imposed on nation just to fool Sunnis .... Iran expererenced the longest war of the 20 centuries by hundreds thousands death toll imposed by western and Sunnie countries to fool Sunnies ... Iran support Palestine cause just to fool Sunnies ...

 

[raptor22]

What the hell, this is why I don't bother with you people. You are liars just like rulers of Iran and Arab states.

1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On February 15, 1991, then President of the United States of America, George H. W. Bush, made a speech targeting Iraqis via Voice of America radio. Hoping to incite a swift military coup to topple Saddam Hussein, Bush stated:[6]


“ There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: and that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations.[7][8]

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

Shia's in the region have been living luxurious and spoiled life in past century with much assistance from West. It's the Sunni's who have been abused during this period and now they are saying; no more.

It's from your link :

The Gulf War ceasefire agreement of March 3 prohibited the Iraqi military's use of fixed-wing aircraft over the country, but allowed them to fly helicopters because most bridges had been destroyed.[22] The outgunned rebels had little heavy weapons and few surface-to-air missiles, which made them almost defenseless against helicopter gunships and indiscriminate artillery barrages when the Ba'athists responded to the uprisings with crushing force. According to Human Rights Watch, "in their attempts to retake cities, and after consolidating control, loyalist forces killed thousands of anyone who opposes them whether a rebel or a civilian by firing indiscriminately into the opposing areas; executing them on the streets, in homes and in hospitals; rounding up suspects, especially young men, during house-to-house searches, and arresting them with or without charge or shooting them en masse; and using helicopters to attack those who try to flee the cities."
​

And also:
How George H.W. Bush Helped Saddam Hussein Prevent an Iraqi Uprising

The following is an adapted excerpt from "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush" (Other Press) by Barry Lando.

Though Saddam Hussein has been dispatched, the trial of his confederates continues in Baghdad. In the next few months, the Special Iraqi Tribunal will be hearing evidence against almost a hundred of Saddam's former officials, charged with the slaughter of tens of thousands of Shiites following the abortive uprising or Intifada of 1991.

Because of the way the Tribunal has been run, it's highly unlikely there'll be any mention of U.S. complicity with that slaughter. In fact, President George H. W. Bush was very much involved.

It was he who in February 1991, as American forces were driving Saddam's troops out of Kuwait, called for the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow the dictator. That message was repeatedly broadcast across Iraq. It was also contained in millions of leaflets dropped by the U.S. Air Force. Eager to end decades of repression, the Shiites arose. Their revolt spread like wildfire; in the north, the Kurds also rose up. Key Iraqi army units joined in. It looked as if Saddam's days were over.

But then George H. W. Bush blew the whistle. Things had got out of hand. What Bush had wanted was not a messy popular uprising but a neat military coup -- another strongman more amenable to Western interests. The White House feared that turmoil would give the Iranians increased influence, upset the Turks, wreak havoc throughout the region.

But the Bush administration didn't just turn its back; it actually aided Saddam to suppress the Intifada.

The Uprising Smashed

When Saddam's brutal counter-attack against the rebellions began, the order was given to American troops already deep inside Iraq and armed to the teeth not to assist the rebellion in any way -- though everyone knew that they were condemning the Intifada to an awful defeat. Thanks to their high-flying reconnaissance planes, U.S. commanders would observe the brutal process as it occurred.

At the time, Rocky Gonzalez was a Special Forces warrant officer serving with U.S. troops in southern Iraq. Because he spoke Arabic, he was detached to serve with the Third Brigade of the 101st Infantry when the ground war began. There were about 140 men in his unit, which was stationed at Al Khadir on the Euphrates, just a few kilometers from Kerbala and Najaf.

Rocky was one of the few Americans who could actually communicate with the Iraqis. When the Intifada erupted, the Americans prompted the rebels to raid the local prison in Kerbala and free the Kuwaitis who were being held there. "We didn't think there was going to be a lot of bloodshed," said Gonzalez, "but they executed the guards in the prison." Prior to the uprising, the rebels had also been feeding intelligence to the Americans on what Saddam's local supporters were up to.

From their base, Rocky and his units watched as Saddam's forces launched their counterattack against the rebel-held city. Thousands of people fled toward the American lines, said Gonzalez. "All of a sudden, as far as the eye could see on Highway Five, there was just a long line of vehicles, dump trucks, tractors -- any vehicle they could get -- coming to us in streams."

"The rebels wanted aid, they wanted medical treatment, and some of the individuals wanted us to give them weapons and ammunition so they could go and fight. One of the refugees was waving a leaflet that had been dropped by U.S. planes over Iraq. Those leaflets told them to rise up against the regime and free themselves."

"They weren't asking us to fight. They felt they could do that themselves. Basically they were just saying 'we rose up like you asked us, now give us some weapons and arms to fight.'"

The American forces had huge stocks of weapons they had captured from the Iraqis. But they were ordered to blow them up rather than turn them over to the rebels. "It was gut-wrenching to me," said Gonzalez. "Here we were sitting on the Euphrates River and we were ordered to stop. As a human being, I wanted to help, but as a solider I had my orders."

Ironically, according to a former U.S. diplomat, some of the arms that were not destroyed by American forces were collected by the CIA and shipped to anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan, who at the time were being clandestinely backed by the U.S.

A Shiite survivor of the uprising later said he had seen other American forces at the river town of Nassiriya destroy a huge cache of weapons that the rebels desperately needed. "They blew up an enormous stock of arms," he said. "If we had been able to get hold of them, the course of history would have been changed in favor of the uprising, because Saddam had nothing left at that moment."

Indeed, Saddam's former intelligence chief, General Wafiq al-Samarrai, later recounted that the government forces had almost no ammunition left when they finally squelched the revolt. "By the last week of the intifada," he said, "the army was down to two hundred and seventy thousand Kalashnikov bullets." That would have lasted for just two more days of fighting.

In his autobiography, General Schwarzkopf, without giving details, alludes to the fact that the American-led coalition aided Saddam to crush the uprising. According to his curious reasoning, expressed in another interview, the Iraqi people were not innocent in the whole affair because "they supported the invasion of Kuwait and accepted Saddam Hussein."

Iraqi survivors of the Intifada also claimed that U.S. forces actually prevented them from marching on Baghdad. "American helicopters landed on the road to block our way and stopped us from continuing," they said. "One of the American soldiers threatened to kill us if we didn't turn back." Another Shiite leader, Dr. Hamid al-Bayatti, claimed that the U.S. even provided Saddam's Republican Guards with fuel. The Americans, he charged, disarmed some resistance units and allowed Republican Guard tanks to go through their checkpoints to crush the uprising. "We let one Iraqi division go through our lines to get to Basra because the United States did not want the regime to collapse," said Middle East expert Wiliam Quandt.

The U.S. officials declined even to meet with the Shiites to hear their case. As Peter Galbraith said, "These were desperate people, desperate for U.S. help. But the U.S. refused to talk to any of the Shiite leaders: the U.S. Embassy, Schwarzkopf, nobody would see them, nor even give them an explanation."

The stonewalling continued even when evidence that Saddam was using chemical weapons against the rebels emerged. "You could see there were helicopters crisscrossing the skies, going back and forth," Rocky Gonzalez said. "Within a few hours people started showing up at our perimeter with chemical burns. They were saying, 'We are fighting the Iraqi military and the Baath Party and they sprayed us with chemicals.' We were guessing mustard gas. They had blisters and burns on their face and on their hands, on places where the skin was exposed," he said. "As the hours passed, more and more people were coming. And I asked them, 'Why don't you go to the hospital in Kerbala,' and the response was that all the doctors and nurses had been executed by the Iraqi soldiers, 'so we come to you for aid.'"

One of the greatest concerns of coalition forces during Desert Storm had been that Saddam would unleash his WMD. U.S. officials repeatedly warned Iraq that America's response would be immediate and devastating. Facing such threats, Saddam kept his weapons holstered -- or so the Bush administration led the world to believe.

Rocky's suspicion that Saddam did resort to them in 1991 was later confirmed by the report of the U.S. Government's Iraq Survey Group, which investigated Saddam's WMD after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and concluded that Saddam no longer had any WMD. Almost universally ignored by the media, however, was the finding that Saddam had resorted to his WMD during the 1991 uprising. The "regime was shaking and wanted something 'very quick and effective' to put down the revolt." They considered then rejected using mustard gas, as it would be too perceptible with U.S. troops close by. Instead, on March 7th, 1991 the Iraqi military filled R-400 aerial bombs with sarin, a binary nerve agent. "Dozens of sorties were flown against Shiite rebels in Kerbala and the surrounding areas," the ISG report said. But apparently the R-400 bombs were not very effective, having been designed for high-speed delivery from planes, not slow-moving helicopters. So the Iraqi military switched to dropping CS, a very potent tear gas, in large aerial bombs.

Because of previous U.S. warnings against resorting to chemical weapons, Saddam and his generals knew they were taking a serious risk, but the Coalition never reacted. The lingering question is why. It's impossible to believe they didn't know about it at the time. There were repeated charges from Shiite survivors that the Iraqi dictator had used chemical weapons. Rocky Gonzalez said he heard from refugees that nerve gas was being used. He had also observed French-made Iraqi helicopters -- one of which was outfitted as a crop sprayer -- making repeated bomb runs over Najaf.Gonzalez maintained that, contrary to what the ISG report said, many of the refugees who fled to U.S. lines were indeed victims of mustard gas. "Their tongues were swollen," he said, "and they had severe burns on the mucous tissue on the inside of their mouths and nasal passages. Our chemical officer also said it looked like mustard gas." Gonzalez suggested that local Iraqi officials, desperate to put down the uprising, may have used mustard gas without permission from on high. "A lot of that was kept quiet," he said, "because we didn't want to panic the troops. We stepped up our training with gas masks, because we were naturally concerned."

Gonzalez's unit also passed their information on to their superiors. "There was no way that officers higher didn't know what was happening," Gonzalez said. "Whether those reports went above our division, I have no idea." Gonzalez's former commander turned down my request for an interview. At the time, few subjects were more sensitive than Saddam's potential use of WMD. It's difficult to believe that reports from Gonzalez's unit weren't flashed immediately up the chain of command in the Gulf and Washington.

There were other American witnesses to what happened. U.S. helicopters and planes flew overhead, patrolling as Saddam's helicopters decimated the rebels. Some of those aircraft provided real-time video of the occurrences below. A reliable U.S. intelligence source confirmed that such evidence does indeed exist.

On March 7th, Secretary of State James Baker warned Saddam not to resort to chemical weapons to repress the uprising. But why, when the U.S. was notified that the Iraqi dictator actually had resorted to chemical weapons, was there no forceful reaction from the administration of the elder Bush?One plausible explanation--denouncing Saddam for using chemical weapons would have greatly increased pressure on the U.S. President to come to the aid of the Shiites.

Instead, the American decision to turn their backs on the Intifada gave a green light to Saddam Hussein's ruthless counterattack. General Wafiq al-Samarrai learned of the decision after Iraqi units intercepted frantic conversations between two Islamic rebels near Nassariya. One told the other that he had gone to the Americans to ask for support, and twice was rebuffed. "They say, 'We are not going to support you because you are Shiites and are collaborating with Iran.'" After hearing that message, al-Samarrai recalled, "The position of the regime immediately became more confident. Now [Saddam] began to attack the Intifada."

The repression when it came was as horrendous as everyone knew it would be.

"Women were being raped. People were being shot in the streets and just left to rot there." Zainab al-Suwaij recounted. "The citizens were forbidden to bury the bodies. Many of them were eaten by the dogs. The government ordered people out of Kerbala to take the road to Najaf. They were slaughtered and executed along the roadway. Many of those killed were teenagers."

As an object lesson to his people, Saddam Hussein himself ordered Iraqi television to record and broadcast scenes of the repression: appalling scenes of captured Shiites, some with ropes around their necks, being kicked and beaten and insulted, threatened with pistols and machine guns, a few pleading for mercy. Most of them, eyes downcast, are eventually dragged away to execution.

The Bush administration attempted to disengage itself from any responsibility. They were helped by the fact that there were no graphic news reports in the West of the slaughter that was taking place. U.S. intelligence agencies had their own accounts and explicit images, but they weren't sharing them with the press or the public. Anonymous government figures, wise in the ways of Realpolitik, were making statements such as, "It is far easier to deal with a tame Saddam Hussein than with an unknown quantity."

Because of Saddam's savage repression of the uprising, the ensuing U.N. sanctions, and the carnage unleashed by the 2003 invasion, at least one million Iraqis have probably lost their lives since 1991.

Imagine if, instead of blocking the Intifada, George H.W. Bush had given a green light -- without even sending American troops to Baghdad -- just sent the needed signals: met with rebel leaders, ordered Saddam to stop flying his helicopter gunships.

Granted there would have been a period of tumult. The Kurds might have achieved an autonomous or semi autonomous state, which is probably what they will wind up with. The Iranians would have certainly increased their influence through their Shiite allies, but probably no more than they have today.

Indeed, some in the Bush I administration were recommending that he do just that: support the revolt he had called for. They were overruled.​

 

[Irfan Baloch]

lol after Russia clean house , and destroyed ISIS

this is a strange thread
I dont know why freedom of expression means speaking on behalf of Al Nusra and ISIS just because they enjoy killing minor sects of Islam

With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about?

It doesn't mention Assad's name anywhere and it is asking for a fair election.


A huge paradox from western/Arab countries. They say Syrians don't want Assad, yet they are scared to death about Assad participating in a supervised election. If Syrians don't want him, then what are they afraid of?

well they are afraid of cannibal wahabis this is why instead of running to "liberated" parts of Iraq and Syria... they are running to Kafir Europe.

 

[raptor22]

Buddy post link first of all. Secondly, using helicopters doesn't mean US gave any 'green light'. Iraqi army had helicopters, Assad army does too and he uses them. Nobody does anything. Does that mean US give green light to Assad? Anyways you are getting off topic. What point are you trying to prove here? That US supported Saddam yet bombed his country few months after this 'uprising'? You are a liar and there is no point you can make.

So any other point you're trying to get across?

In present of American troops and while no-fly zone were imposed by Americans and their allies letting Sadam to hover his choppers to kill people means nothing but green light ...

And about getting off-topic, you accused Shia of having westerns on their sides to fool Sunnies and I listed events that Shia has been oppressed by westerns ... how it could be off-topic when I replied your claimed ? and make me a liar?

 

[GBU-28]

Hopefully Assad takes revenge on the 'palestinians' for their treachery.

Yarmouk wasn't enough of a lesson.

 

[bozorgmehr]

Are we in Kindergarten? Really? Just because the other dictator decided to infringe upon the rights of citizens gives your pet dictator the right to set up Nazi-style death camps and drop barrel bombs on the civilian populace? It's all well because his opposition is worse than him, right? Jesus Christ, you're talking about me looking in black and white while dividing the Syrian Civil War into two sides. Either you're a secular and progressive Assadist or a Jihadi Sunni terrorist in the opposition. This is Bush-style thinking, you know.



You mean an unsustainable government which will always lead to some sort of violence. A quick look at the other dictatorships in the Middle East show that every strongman and dictator in the country has ended up getting overthrown and being replaced by either anarchy, a group of fundies or another strongman. Assad's own father faced an uprising in the '80s, to which he responded more or less the same way Assad did. These type of governments are unsustainable and will only end up slaughtering millions and dying out leading to anarchy. They're not a viable option. Sorry.

Lay off the sarcasm buddy. It's hard enough to make sense of what you're trying to say already...

So what's your point? That Assad is a brutal dictator? That he tortured and killed his people? Well get in line...

Now what? What do you want to do with that? Do you want to take him out and replace him with people who not only will not provide any political freedom, rule of law, fair and neutral justice system or any form of participatory government, but will take away the few personal freedoms and a relatively modern education that the Syrians enjoy? Cause if you think armed Islamists whose sole mission is to make people live like the 7th century Arabia will somehow magically build a tolerant society and a representative government, then I have an amazing ocean front property to sell you on Kepler-16b...

Democracy is not a piece of paper you win at the end of a bloody war. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any revolutions that resulted in democracies. Because democracy is a state of mind. It's a set of principles and values exercised by the masses of the people. It requires each member of the society to freely exercise his/her choice. And what that implies is that you need to have the space for differences in beliefs, thoughts, views, tastes, choices, etc... In short, you need tolerance! The prerequisite for all of this is a tolerant society.

Can you see now why democracy, political freedom, freedom and thought and expression, etc... are so difficult to take hold in middle east? Because we ourselves, are intolerant people. Now dealing with that is the real battle. That is the true revolution. That's what takes a lot of hard work, with even more heart and courage. And unfortunately for the lazy minded folks looking for a quick fixes, there are no shortcuts. Because societies take a long time to evolve. Cultures, mindsets, principles don't change so quickly. The fastest way to do it is to bite the bullet, pay the heavy price and go for the non-violent, peaceful evolution and incremental change. No gun wielding thugs offering easy solutions will solve the problem. You'll just be jumping from the frying pan, into the fire... into hell.