What's new

Saudi ‘seeking Pakistan arms for Syrian rebels’

Status
Not open for further replies.
Baath party is an Arab nationalist party. It does not focus on religion. Jewish Arabs would be welcome in Syria just as much as Sunni Arabs, or Shia Arabs, or Christian Arabs, or Druze Arabs. Syria's beef is with Israel, which has stolen land from Palestinian Arabs and continues to do so. Pakistan has no business in an Arab Hebrew conflict. Best to stay out of it completely. :oops:
 
Wars are unfortunate, they happen, the best we can do is to stay low and capitalize on them by selling our weapons

Why not capitalize on world opium market then ? Drugs are bad , but people use them , the best we can do is to stay low and capitalize . People are going to buy drugs anyways , if we dont produce , some one else will . At least it is better than selling weapons which kill innocent children !!! Morality or No Morality !!


We must not tilt either way in the Syria conflict.

We are on KSA`s side already


We should place ourselves where we could sell our weapons, ideally to the both sides.

Why would Asad need weapons from us ?? He can get better weapons from other suppliers and may be at much better rates !! Even KSA could have done that . We are not the only one producing such kind of weapons after all . The question is , "why did KSA choose Al-Bakistan`s Chinese weapons" ?? ?? This alone explains a lot my friend !!
 
Last edited:
With Syria presidential election coming in early May this year, it's too late for there to be a military solution in Syria. Baath party has by now hundreds of thousands of troops, including crack NDF, and has received tons and I mean TONS more military hardware from Russia, Iran, Iraq. :yes4:
 
I wonder what the Chinese think about this issue of weapons of their design falling into the hands of Anti-Assad forces in Syria.
China has been a strong supporter of the Assad regime.
 
I wonder what the Chinese think about this issue of weapons of their design falling into the hands of Anti-Assad forces in Syria.
China has been a strong supporter of the Assad regime.


China does not support any one person in Syria. China is against meddling in any country's affair. Syria's president will be chosen by the Syrian voters, not by America or the west. This is the same policy Russia has. What happened to Libya in 2011 will not be repeated.
 
there are some Pakistani elements in Syria, but as of now I think the Pakistani government is not fully involved.... the best thing for Pakistan to do now is stay neutral, even if Saudi "Arabia" pressure Pakistan....

Best thing for you is to shut the hell up you're not even Syrian, LOL.
 
Pakistan has picked the right side of history. Thats what matters. We stand with the Syrian people who are our brothers in faith not with a mass murderer.
I was always in favor of taking out Assad and this would have been easily done if all Muslim Air Forces would have united and taken out this idiot this man has destroyed Syria if this would have been taken out form with in first few months Syria buy now would have its own system and their would have been no need of destroying Syrian Army they in fact they could have been used to and trained more and equipped to deal with the threat of Israel
 
China does not support any one person in Syria. China is against meddling in any country's affair. Syria's president will be chosen by the Syrian voters, not by America or the west. This is the same policy Russia has. What happened to Libya in 2011 will not be repeated.
WHY CHINA WILL BACK ASSAD—UNTIL IT WON’T
POSTED BY EVAN OSNOS
china-relationship-with-syria.jpg


In vetoing a U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria for the third time, China and Russia have tested Western diplomats’ capacity for creative contempt. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton already described their veto as “despicable” back in February. This time, U.N. ambassador Susan Rice settled on “dangerous and deplorable.” Britain said it was “appalled,” and ambassador Mark Lyall Grant singled out Moscow and Beijing for having “chosen to put their national interests ahead of the lives of millions of Syrians.”

Curiously, you won’t find many at China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs who disagree with that assessment. Indeed, China has its own interests at heart. It is tempting to misread the veto on several levels: Is it a sign, as some in Washington imagine, of deepening ties between Russia and China? No. (Rarely have two neighboring powers had less trust and affection for each other.) Is it because of Chinese leaders’ deep connection to Bashar al-Assad? Not exactly. Rather, China’s actions on Syria must be understood as part of a growing sense in Beijing that its world view is under assault from the West.

In February, I called Syria the firewall in China’s foreign policy. Since then, the dynamic has intensified. When Clinton visited Asia this month, China bristled; in the piece “CLINTON TRIP HIGHLIGHTS WEAK POINTS OF U.S. RETURN TO ASIA,” the Global Times said the trip was largely dedicated to “attacking China’s development model”: “Her every topic targeted China by insinuation. It seems the U.S. is tightening its encirclement on China.” By now, even Beijing acknowledges that the chance “for a political resolution to the Syrian conflict is getting slim,” as another piece in the state-run media put it, but it insists, as the headline put it, that “China has no need to change stance.”

After the vote, I spoke with former C.I.A. analyst Christopher Johnson, the Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Among Chinese policymakers, he said, the thinking is clear: “If we don’t draw the line on Syria, then Western powers’ next step is Iran, and then Central Asia, and then they are on our backdoor. Many in the leadership really believe this.” But if China is sensing that it is likely to end up on the losing side of the Syrian affair, why risk undermining its intensive investment in soft power? “They are still struggling with how to do soft power. They know they want it, but, to be frank, their system doesn’t naturally lend itself particularly well to that. What is behind their policy? Pragmatism and, in some cases, mercantilism.” With China readying for a once-a-decade handover of power, “the temperature inside the system [in Beijing] is such that their default setting is to go with the more conservative choice.”

So how far will China’s support for Assad extend? China doesn’t go for underdogs, so expect a parting of ways as Assad reaches his seemingly inevitable end, much as China did in the case of Libya. Last September, Beijing was the last major economic power to recognize Libya’s new government. But it did so—and, then, in case anyone wondered about the basis of the Libyan-Chinese alliance, Chinese telecom firms Huawei and ZTE announced their return to Libya less than forty-eight hours later.

More than seventeen thousand people have been killed since the Syrian uprising began, sixteen months ago. China will likely stay the course—until it does not. Johnson expects “something like Libya,” he said. “They will only change policy when the last ‘t’ is crossed.”
 
Pakistan should avoid syria and should remain neutral. Why not Saudis buying these weapons from USA or any other country. pakistan will the the one to get blame because pakistani weapons would be there. It's war between two regimes iran and ksa. All goras laughing at them and they are busy fighting each other. Killing each other. Americans are dealing both sides. I don't know why are they acting so dumb. They know everything thing and still doing it. Just for their ego satisfaction thousands of Muslims are losing there lives. Shame on both of them.
Anyone knows about this weapon is it pakistan made or just fake title?
 
Syria allies: Why Russia, Iran and China are standing by the regime
By Holly Yan, CNN
August 30, 2013 -- Updated 0101 GMT (0901 HKT)
121107042112-03-syria-1107-story-top.jpg

(CNN) -- Allegations of a chemical weapons attack carried out by the Syrian regime last week have heightened tensions internationally. There's been tough talk from Western leaders and a flurry of activity by the United States -- all of which seem to suggest that a military strike against the regime could be in the offing.

But through it all, Syria seems to retain the support of some good friends.

Why do Russia, Iran and China continue to support a regime that's accused of slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians in the 2-year-old civil war?

Here's why.

RUSSIA

Why it cares:

Two main reasons: One has to do with economics; the other with ideology.

a) Economics: Russia is one of Syria's biggest arms suppliers.

Syrian contracts with the Russian defense industry have likely exceeded $4 billion, according to Jeffrey Mankoff, an adjunct fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies Russia and Eurasia Program.

He noted the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated the value of Russian arms sales to Syria at $162 million per year in both 2009 and 2010.

Moscow also signed a $550 million deal with Syria for combat training jets.

Russia also leases a naval facility at the Syrian port of Tartus, giving the Russian navy its only direct access to the Mediterranean, Mankoff said.

b) Ideology: Russia's key policy goal is blocking American efforts to shape the region.

Russia doesn't believe revolutions, wars and regime change bring stability and democracy. It often points to the Arab Spring and the U.S.-led war in Iraq as evidence.

Russia also doesn't trust U.S. intentions in the region. It believes humanitarian concerns are often used an excuse for pursuing America's own political and economic interests.

"Russia's backing of (Syrian President Bashar) al-Assad is not only driven by the need to preserve its naval presence in the Mediterranean, secure its energy contracts, or counter the West on 'regime change,'" said Anna Neistat, an associate program director at Human Rights Watch.

"It also stems from (Russian President Vladimir) Putin's existential fear for his own survival and the survival of the repressive system that he and al-Assad represent. In Putin's universe, al-Assad cannot lose because it means that one day he, Putin, might as well."

IRAN

Why it cares:

Iran and Syria are bound by two factors: religion and strategy.

a) Religion: Iran is the world's most populous Shiite Muslim nation. The Syrian government is dominated by Alawites, a Shiite offshoot, and the rebels are dominated by Sunnis.

That connection has bound them for quite a while. Iran counted on Syria as its only Arab ally during its eight-year war with Iraq. Iraq was Sunni-dominated.

The last thing Iran wants now is a Sunni-dominated Syria -- especially as the rebels' main supporters are Iran's Persian Gulf rivals: Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

b) Strategy: For Iran, Syria is also a strategically key ally. It's Iran's main conduit to the Shiite militia Hezbollah in Lebanon, the proxy through which Iran can threaten Israel with an arsenal of short-range missiles.

In 2009, the top U.S. diplomat in Damascus disclosed that Syria had begun delivery of ballistic missiles to Hezbollah, according to official cables leaked to and published by WikiLeaks.

So, it's in Iran's interest to see al-Assad's regime remain intact.

Western intelligence officials believe the Islamic Republic has provided technical help such as intelligence, communications and advice on crowd control and weapons as protests in Syria morphed into resistance.

A U.N. panel reported in May that Iranian weapons destined for Syria but seized in Turkey included assault rifles, explosives, detonators, machine guns and mortar shells.

Ayham Kamel of Eurasia Group believes the Iranians must be alarmed that the tide is turning against al-Assad.

"Iran probably has excellent information regarding Assad's position. That information would make clear that Iran is increasingly likely to lose its only ally in the region, greatly reducing its strategic reach," he said.

What's it saying:

Iran has cast events in Syria as part of a much broader ideological battle. It's a "war between the front of hegemony and the front of resistance," Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said.

Iran's position, as outlined by Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and new President Hassan Rouhani, is that the Syrian government is a victim of international plots.

Iran believes the West and almost all Arab countries are in cahoots in an effort to implement regime change in Syria. Iran says the main objective of this plot is to make the region safer for Israel.

This week, Zarif warned of "graver conditions" in Syria is attacked.

"If any country attacks another when it wants, that is like the Middle Ages," Zarif said Wednesday.

Why it matters:

Many believe Iran is Washington's greatest threat in the region, especially with its nuclear potential. It's unclear how Iran might respond if Syria is attacked. But the rhetoric certainly has been ominous.

"Starting this fire will be like a spark in a large store of gunpowder, with unclear and unspecified outcomes and consequences," Khamenei told Iranian Cabinet members this week.

"The U.S. threats and possible intervention in Syria is a disaster for the region and if such an act is done, certainly, the Americans will sustain damage like when they interfered in Iraq and Afghanistan."

What justifies intervening if Syria uses chemical weapons?

CHINA

Why it cares:

China's relationship with Syria is more nuanced.

Some say it wants to maintain its financial ties. It was ranked as Syria's third-largest importer in 2010, according to data from the European Commission.

"Beijing's renewed interest in Damascus -- the traditional terminus node of the ancient Silk Road ... indicates that China sees Syria as an important trading hub," according to a 2010 report from The Jamestown Foundation, a Washington-based research and analysis institute.

But there's a bigger factor at play.

China has said foreign countries shouldn't meddle in Syria's internal affairs -- and perhaps for good reason. China has had its own share of international controversies over its policies with Tibet as well as allegations of human rights violations.

Finally, China doesn't want to reprise what happened with Libya.

It abstained from a U.N. Security Council resolution on that one, clearing the way for a NATO military intervention in Libya.

"It was rather disappointed with the payoff," said Yun Sun of the Brookings Institution, writing in the East-West Center's Asia Pacific Bulletin. "Neither the West nor the NTC (Libyan National Transitional Council) showed much appreciation for China's abstention."

So, he says, China has "formulated a far more sophisticated hedging strategy" when it comes to Syria.

"Rather than siding with either Assad or the opposition and standing aside to 'wait and see,' Beijing is actively betting on both."

What's it saying:

China said it is firmly opposed to the use of chemical weapons and supports the U.N.'s chemical weapons inspectors.

It also said it wants a political solution for Syria -- though some say hopes for such an ending have waned.

"A political solution is always the only realistic means to resolve the Syria issue," Foreign Minister Wang Yi said.

Like Russia, China also walked out of Wednesday's U.N. Security Council meeting where Britain planned to pursue a resolution on Syria.

Why it matters:

China is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. And like Russia, China has repeatedly blocked sanctions attempts against the Syrian regime -- leading to a perpetual stalemate at the U.N. body to take any serious action on Syria.
 
Last edited:
What is the priority of Pakistan, as regards to the said region? Does Pakistan have an independent view of the region, without inputs from SA or America? Who will not like the Pakistanis involvement and where will it have a repurcussion? If these questions are asked, I think, it will be safe to say, stay away. Its not Pakistan's headache, except say, "We are concerned and will do everything under the mandate of the UN to solve the crisis. Our hearts are with the Syrian people and we will provide all humanitarian assistance possible under the UN umbrella."
 
Those are the F-16s US owed us. Lets wait for more details before speculation.
I guess US owe us nothing as far as embargoed F-16s are concerned. US refunded 658 million dollars in 1998. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Last edited:
Instead of being a party in the conflict by supplying weapons and adding fuel to fire, Pakistan, Turkey and other sane countries in the region should stress Iran for help towards a peaceful settlement of the problem so that a new government is elected by popular vote and the rights of Shias are very very carefully protected in the future. More conflict might be liked by some nations and rise of Al Qaeda might become even greater problem for rest of the world and countries in the region.

We do not want to be party in any conflict to create more problems for everyone. And we should be proud if we could play a constructive role towards a good settlement of the problem that actually brings a fair democratic system and also protects every minority in Syria.

Any request by Saudi government has to be evaluated by us according to these principles. We do not want it to be a Shia-Sunni issue and have to solve it according to "good human principles".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom