Sirija

[Budja]

Asad je do sada morao da se obrati javnosti, proslo je vise od jednog dana od napada.Nesto se desava sa njim, videcemo sta.

State TV has broadcast the first images of President Assad since the attack, as he swore in the defence minister.It was not immediately clear where the swearing-in ceremony of armed forces chief Gen Fahd Jassim al-Furayj took place.

[Аврам Гојић]

A, dobro je, vec sam se zabrinuo da mu se nije sta desilo.

[Lord Protector]

Rubin sve objasnio, još u junu mesecu

The Real Reason to Intervene in SyriaCutting Iran's link to the Mediterranean Sea is a strategic prize worth the risk. BY JAMES P. RUBIN | JUNE 4, 2012 Foreign Policy We're not done with the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran. Given that the current round of negotiations with the world's major powers will not fundamentally change Iran's nuclear program, the question of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is likely to return to center stage later this year. In addition to hard-headed diplomacy and economic sanctions, there is an important step the United States can take to change Israel's calculations -- helping the people of Syria in their battle against President Bashar al-Assad's regime. Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but in fact they are inextricably linked. Israel's real fear -- losing its nuclear monopoly and therefore the ability to use its conventional forces at will throughout the Middle East -- is the unacknowledged factor driving its decision-making toward the Islamic Republic. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. It's the fact that Iran doesn't even need to test a nuclear weapon to undermine Israeli military leverage in Lebanon and Syria. Just reaching the nuclear threshold could embolden Iranian leaders to call on their proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, to attack Israel, knowing that their adversary would have to think hard before striking back. That is where Syria comes in. It is the strategic relationship between the Islamic Republic and the Assad regime that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security. Over the three decades of hostility between Iran and Israel, a direct military confrontation has never occurred -- but through Hezbollah, which is sustained and trained by Iran via Syria, the Islamic Republic has proven able to threaten Israeli security interests. The collapse of the Assad regime would sunder this dangerous alliance. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, arguably the most important Israeli decision-maker on this question, recently told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that the Assad regime's fall "will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world ... and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza." The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, and it is abundantly clear that neither diplomatic pressure nor economic sanctions will force Assad to accept a negotiated solution to the crisis. With his life, his family, and his clan's future at stake, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator's stance. Absent foreign intervention, then, the civil war in Syria will only get worse as radicals rush in to exploit the chaos there and the spillover into Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey intensifies. U.S. President Barack Obama's administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria similar to the campaign in Libya, for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians, the longtime patron of the Assad regime, are staunchly opposed. Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable result of saving many thousands of Libyan civilians from Muammar al-Qaddafi's regime, it had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder -- but success there would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass popular opposition, but Iran would no longer have a Mediterranean foothold from which to threaten Israel and destabilize the region. A successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by declaring its willingness to work with regional allies like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to organize, train, and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials could start strengthening and unifying the opposition. Once the opposition knows real outside help is on the way, it should be possible over time to build a coherent political leadership based on the Syrian National Council as well as a manageable command and control structure for the Free Syrian Army, both of which are now weak and divided. This will be difficult and time-consuming, but we should remember that the Syrian civil war is now destined to go on for years, whether the outside world intervenes or not. A second step worth serious consideration is to secure international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the U.N. Security Council. And given the reluctance of some European states, NATO may be difficult as well. Therefore, this operation will have to be a unique combination of Western and Middle East countries. Given Syria's extreme isolation within the Arab League, it should be possible to gain strong support from most Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. U.S. leadership is indispensable, since most of the key countries will follow only if Washington leads. Some worry that U.S. involvement risks a confrontation with Russia. However, the Kosovo example -- where NATO went to war against another Russian ally, while Moscow did little more than complain -- shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don't exist between Russia and Syria. Managing Russia's reaction to outside intervention will be difficult but should not be exaggerated. Arming the Syrian opposition and creating a coalition air force to support them is a low-cost, high-payoff approach. Whether an air operation should just create a no-fly zone that grounds the regimes' aircraft and helicopters or actually conduct air to ground attacks on Syrian tanks and artillery should be the subject of immediate military planning. And as Barak, the Israeli defense minister, also noted, Syria's air defenses may be better than Libya's but they are no match for a modern air force. The larger point is that as long as Washington stays firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, à la Kosovo and Libya, the cost to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will likely regard the United States as more friend than enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. With the Islamic Republic deprived of its gateway to the Arab world, the Israelis' rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on its nuclear facilities would diminish. A new Syrian regime might eventually even resume the frozen peace talks regarding the Golan Heights. In Lebanon, Hezbollah would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor, since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance, and missiles. All these strategic benefits combined with the moral purpose of saving tens of thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime -- some 12,000 have already been killed, according to activists -- make intervention in Syria a calculated risk, but still a risk worth taking. With the veil of fear now lifted, the Syrian people are determined to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them -- and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a far more dangerous war between Israel and Iran.James P. Rubin was assistant secretary of state during the Bill Clinton administration.

i jedan sa drugog dela spektra, večito antiprotivni Justin Raimondo sa antiwar.com

The Lies We TellPosted By Justin Raimondo On July 17, 2012 A recent report in the London Telegraph is emblematic of the lies Washington tells, and the means by which they give these lies circulation:“Despite mounting fury from the Syrian rebels, who are seeking assistance for their efforts to overthrow the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, the White House has refused all requests for heavy weapons and intelligence support. “Syrian lobby groups in Washington, who only a few weeks ago were expressing hope that the Obama administration might give a green light to the supply of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, said they had now been forced to “take a reality pill” by the US government. “The Telegraph understands that the Syrian Support Group (SSG), the political wing of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), recently presented American officials with a document requesting 1,000 RPG-29 anti-tank missiles, 500 SAM-7 rockets, 750 23mm machine guns as well as body armor and secure satellite phones. They also asked for $6m to pay rebel fighters as they battle the regime. All their requests were rejected. “’Basically the message is very clear; nothing is going to happen until after the election, in fact nothing will happen until after inauguration [Jan 2013]. And that is the same message coming from everyone, including the Turks and the Qataris,’ said a Washington lobbyist for the group.”Let’s unpack this one: To being with, the US is already arming the rebels, the Telegraph to the contrary notwithstanding. As the Washington Post recently reported:“We are increasing our nonlethal assistance to the Syrian opposition, and we continue to coordinate our efforts with friends and allies in the region and beyond in order to have the biggest impact on what we are collectively doing,” said a senior State Department official, one of several U.S. and foreign government officials who discussed the evolving effort on the condition of anonymity.“The U.S. contacts with the rebel military and the information-sharing with gulf nations mark a shift in Obama administration policy as hopes dim for a political solution to the Syrian crisis. Many officials now consider an expanding military confrontation to be inevitable.”See here, here, and here for similar reports. The official definition of “nonlethal aid” is something I’m waiting to learn of — State Department officials refused to answer when I called and asked — but it’s a moot point, since we’re “coordinating” with Qatar and the Saudis, who have no qualms about degrees of lethality. Yes, I know, you’re shocked — shocked! — the US government is lying through its rather sharp teeth: why, it’s absolutely unprecedented!Yet that isn’t the most telling aspect of the Telegraph piece: after all, the rebels are getting their arms from somewhere, and reports that they control more territory than anyone thought indicate arms shipments — whatever their origins — have been substantial and the pace is picking up. While the US may be taking pains to make sure their fingerprints won’t be found on the weapons flowing into the hands of Syria’s rebel army, with its links to Al Qaeda, the governments of our Gulf allies are less fastidious about such matters.Everybody knows the US is backing the rebels to the hilt: they might as well rename themselves Hillary’s Hellions. :D No, what’s significant here is the floating of the ridiculous idea the Obamaites are afraid of the political consequences of arming the rebels, and openly intervening, because this is a presidential election year. The assumption is that Obama and the Democrats will have to pay a political price for intervening in Syria’s civil war — but to whom will the price be paid? Republican hawks, led by John McCain and Lindsay Graham, are harrying the administration for not intervening more strenuously and openly, while Mitt Romney — while not yet calling for airstrikes, per McCain and Graham — criticizes the White House’s “paralysis” and calls for openly arming the rebels, rather than doing it under the table.As for the prospect of Obama alienating some of his supporters on the left-wing of the Democratic party: this didn’t happen when it came to Libya, and I doubt intervening in Syria would deflate the President’s enormous credibility in those quarters, where identity politics long ago displaced anti-imperialism as an ideological priority. “Humanitarian” interventionism is today the default foreign policy agenda of the liberal-left, with only old-fashioned Marxists dissenting. This presidential election season will not differ from any others in recent history when it comes to foreign policy issues. As Garet Garret, a conservative journalist of libertarian leanings, put it in 1952:“Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other. That we know. Yet never has the choice been put to a vote of the people.”While there are some in both parties who question some aspects of our globalist foreign policy, the interventionists control the leadership. Indeed, that is one of the main benefits of having two state-privileged parties and draconian ballot access laws that exclude all others — it’s far easier to establish and maintain a stranglehold on just two parties than on multiple competitors in the electoral arena. I’ve often referred to the “burden of empire” in this space, and this is usually calculated in terms of the cost in blood and treasure. But get a load of what Abdulbaset Sieda, who heads up the Syrian National Council, has to say:“We want for America and the Western countries to carry out their responsibilities. With regard to America, specifically, we would like to say to President Obama that waiting for election day to make the right decision on Syria is unacceptable for the Syrians. “We cannot understand that a superpower ignores the killing of tens of thousands of Syrian civilians because of an election campaign that a president may win or lose. That’s why we are saying there is work that must take place at the Security Council.”Americans have no right to think of themselves: this is “unacceptable for the Syrians.” As for what the American people think — well, they don’t matter. The US and its allies must “carry out their responsibilities.”Responsibility — to whom, and for what? The implication is clear enough: we must bear moral responsibility for anything that happens anywhere on earth. The burden of empire is not just material, it is also ethical — a “responsibility to protect,” as the lefty-internationalist apologists for the Libyan debacle would have it. Lost in all this, of course, is the US government’s responsibility to protect the people of their own country, whose interests — and very lives — are needlessly endangered by our reckless foreign policy. Floating a story about how the administration is resisting increasing pressure to intervene in Syria is a good way to deflect attention from what they are in fact doing right at this moment to overthrow a foreign government. That they are mounting this increasingly overt effort to benefit a movement with clear connections to our supposed Enemy Number One, Al Qaeda, may rile some conservatives, but probably not enough to the point of making a big deal about it. So Senor Sieda needn’t worry: thanks to our “democratic” system, this administration will pay no political price for meddling in the Syrian mess. If the rebels did indeed present the administration with a wish list of weapons, and it isn’t being delivered in a timely manner — well, pieces like the Telegraph story may speed up the process. One interesting aspect of the Telegraph piece is that it cites at least three separate anonymous “Syrian lobbyists” as saying this and that, but one wonders: who is paying all these lobbyists? And how much money is changing hands in Washington in the effort to push us into war? The Obama reelection campaign’s decision to “globalize” their fundraising efforts puts the question front and center: will foreign interests — the Saudis, the Qataris, the Israelis — buy themselves another Mideast war? Sure, only American citizens can donate to our election campaigns, but it is easy to enough to get around these restrictions by utilizing American stand-ins and indirect payments to nonprofit “advocacy” groups. If war with Iran would mean a regional or even a new world war — World War III — then Syria is a 21st century version of the Spanish civil war. The Spanish conflict was a dress rehearsal for the main event, in the course of which various “militias” fought one another for control of the Spanish Republic, while the Axis-backed forces of Gen. Francisco Franco and his Falangist party eventually prevailed. There were those in this country who wanted to support the Loyalists, as supporters of the pro-Communist Spanish Republican government were called, but in that event we might very well have wound up with Spain behind the Iron Curtain after the end of World War II. Likewise, in Syria today, in our effort to ally with radical Sunnis in a holy war against Shi’ite Iran, we risk handing power to those who would be more than happy to bite off the hand that fed them.

Edited July 19, 2012 by slow

[Roger Sanchez]

Cijoj je upotrebi ta vecina inace nesklona.

E pa varaš se druže, može se to i finije, bez veto-grubosti.. -_-

Čurkin je kazao i da Rusija neće izneti na glasanje svoj nacrt rezolucije o produžetku misije UN o Siriji. Zapadne zemlje su objavile da će najmanje sedam država biti uzdržano prilikom glasanja o ruskom nacrtu, a da bi se rezolucija usvojila, neophodno je da za nju glasa bar devet od 15 članica SB UN, čak i ako nijedna zemlja ne uloži veto.

[Gandalf]

Rubin sve objasnio, još u junu mesecu

BS ovaj Rubin je zesca volina. US vojna intervencija bi bila osudjena na propast. srecom, ocito je da u trenutnoj US administraciji ipak sede ljudi sa malo vise mozga od Rubina.

i jedan sa drugog dela spektra, večito antiprotivni Justin Raimondo sa antiwar.com

BSdok Raimondo ide u drugu krajnost, u zelji da po svaku cenu dokaze svo zlo US imperijalizma. pa ispade da administracija jedva ceka da intervenise, a sirijski pobunjenici imaju prisne i neraskidive veze sa AQ.

[Prospero]

e stvarno, simpatišem libertarian cause ali kad vidim da se bahmanica negde peticiono potpisala nekako mi pokvari trenutak. :)edit:

Democracy derived Rhetorical Entrapment July 18, 2012 at 4:01 pm (tWP - M. Silva)Western foreign policy suffers from a major flaw: rhetorical entrapment.What are Western interests in Syria? The question is not often asked because it is not politically correct to mention interests when innocent people are being slaughtered. In these situations only values are of importance. Our values dictate that we strive to save as many lives as possible.But what do our interests dictate?Syria is a nuisance for the West. It fights the West’s strategic and economic interests in Lebanon, the Levant and the Mashreq in general. Unlike Iran it does not do so out of prejudice but rather out of pure self-interest. Syria being dependent on the Lebanese economy and strategic position does not have an interest in seeing any other power dominate Lebanon other than Syria. Damascus had no interest in allowing the US to dominate Iraq and thus becoming a major hegemon in the Middle East, and it was a balance of power reasoning that compelled the Assad regime to help jihadists and Iranians in subverting Coalition rule of occupied Iraq. Syria has kept an alliance with Iran for the same reason: because without sharing borders and conflicting spheres of interest, Tehran and Damascus could mutually cooperate to counter-balance Turkey, Iraq and to discuss the Kurd problem. In addition relying on each other also meant becoming more independent from international superpowers like the US or Russia.Syria is thus a nuisance because it interferes frequently with Western interests. Syria is not however a major threat since unlike Iran, it does not have the capability to project power (soft or hard) in the region and limits itself to acting in its adjacent periphery. It also does not have energetic resources that might influence the behavior of world markets – like Iran.The West has therefore only one interest in Syria: to alter its foreign policy paradigm. The best way to do this is to break its alliance with Iran so as to make it more dependent on international superpowers and co-opt it into becoming more acquiescent regionally to Western concerns. An extra benefit would be to see Iran’s isolation grow and sufficient barriers to its adventure in Lebanon, be created.Taking this into account, should the West intervene in Syria? The answer is ‘no’. Syria is not important enough for a financially vulnerable West to spend resources on, especially when Iran is much higher in the list of priorities. That said, why not make a small contribution to the subversion of the regime?Here is where American and European foreign policy incurs in an error: Washington and Europe should only try and replace the old regime if there were sufficient guarantees the new regime would be loyal. At this point in time there are none since much of the rebellion is carried out by jihadists and much of Syria’s Sunni majority is by default anti-Western.The subversion of Syria should serve the one and only purpose of forcing Bashar al-Assad to negotiate. It is not his regime which matters replacing but merely his foreign policy.Yet the West will not negotiate and the reason is simple rhetorical entrapment. Assad and his regime have by now been so vilified that any political compromise with it would be politically damaging to all the Western leaders who helpless and unwilling to intervene, chose to attack with words instead.The pattern is not new: during the Second World War, Hitler outsmarted the Franco-British strategy of setting Germany and Russia against each other by securing a non-aggression pact with the USSR and by attacking the West first. Instead of learning from Hitler’s example, the West refused to make a separate peace with the Reich and paid a heavy price for it: eastern Europe under Soviet orbit for the next 40 years. With Japan too, in spite of the fact that the militarist regime was not as ideological as Nazi Germany, no dialogue was opened and unconditional surrender was the only exit offered to Tokyo. The result was the resort to atomic weapons, the cost was a quarter of a million lives.Since, the tendency has endured with Western demands for humanitarian and democratic principles to be upheld to impossibly high standards and resulting in military interventions by the West in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, which were ultimately counter-productive for its interests. The unwillingness to compromise is recurrently a consequence of populism and demagoguery in justifying military expenditure and intervention, to Western citizens. Instead of justifying them with pragmatic interests, politicians with a 4/8 year policy-making horizon, prefer to justify them manicheistically, making use of a Western fundamental rights and liberties narrative which confronted with violations of those rights automatically confers merit to action (“we have to do something”) and finally warrants intervention. This is nothing but short-termism and is now standard operating procedure in spite of some honourable exceptions such as President George H. W. Bush.This tendency is a disservice to Western interests which often reaches the absurd of empowering adversaries of the West against Western allies.It is a tendency also brought about by Western civilisational individualism, which sees the individual as the base of society (rather than family, clan or ethnicity), therefore requiring equal universal [individual] human rights which are reflected in foreign policy by an unreasonable demand for compliance with values endogenous only to the West.A responsible and skillful politician would have negotiated a political solution to the conflict in Syria months ago. Populists in election year will stick to demands for unconditional surrender. The West plays a dangerous game for not only does it force extreme outcomes – instead of middle of the road ones – but it also will be compelled to systematically trust the challengers of the regime: every regime has flaws in its ‘good society’ record – be these in democratic practices or humanitarian standards – whereas the challengers are by definition starting anew and are therefore as innocent as a newborn infant – a politically convenient tabula rasa…

Edited July 19, 2012 by buffalo bill

[Далибор]

http://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/u-kataru-sagraden-lazni-damask-sirenje-neistine-stanju-siriji-clanak-432785

[Tutankamon]

Nadam se da shvataš koliko je ovaj text iz večernjaka a koji je preuzet iz Gardijana a koji se odnosi na izveštavanje SANE, zvanične sirijske agencije u stvari tu da oslika svu paranoju jednoga režima i svu glupost njegove propagande...

[Аврам Гојић]

http://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/u-kataru-sagraden-lazni-damask-sirenje-neistine-stanju-siriji-clanak-432785

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6dkMsogZ30

[Tutankamon]

Na ovom linku imate kolekciju od čitavih 71464 (broj raste iz minuta u minut) video uradaka nastalih od početka pobune u Siriji, pa kome je dosadno može da pregleda uglove kamere, kulise, statiste i glumce...i ko zna, možda je sve zaista i snimljeno u Kataru

[Roger Sanchez]

U pravu si, zadivljujuca suptilnost. Grubosti su rezervisane da se zastiti neprikosnoveno pravo Izraela da radi sta hoce.

Tako je. S tim da Izrael ipak ratuje sa svojim neprijateljima i pobunjenim okupiranim stanovništvom, a ne s vlastitim građanima.IONPao poznati granični prijelaz al Qaim. Ai i još neki potezi granice.

BAGHDAD - Rebels attacked Syrian forces Thursday along the nation's porous border with Iraq, killing at least 21 soldiers and seizing control of all four major border posts, a senior Iraqi army official said.Additionally, rebels took control of two major crossings on the border with Turkey, Reuters reports. Syrian rebel spokesmen said they seized control of the customs and immigration buildings on the Syrian side of the northern Turkish frontier gate of Bab al-Hawa, as well as the Jarablus crossing.Near the Iraq border, the assaults against Syria's government unfolded throughout the day, putting the Iraqi army on high alert to prevent any violence from spilling across the border.Iraq's Deputy Interior Minister Adnan al-Assadi told Agence France Presse Iraqi border guards had witnessed the Free Syrian Army take control of a border outpost, detain a Syrian army lieutenant colonel, and then cut off his arms and legs."Then they executed 22 Syrian soldiers in front of the eyes of Iraqi soldiers," Assadi said.The situation has put the government of Iraq on high alert."We have security concerns because the border crossing now is out of the Syria government's control, and nobody can anticipate what will happen," said Iraqi Army Brig. General Qassim al-Dulaimi.Al-Duliami said about a half-dozen rebels stormed the Syrian border crossing near the Iraqi town of Qaim on Thursday morning. He said the rebels forced the border guards from their posts but did not cross into Iraq.Qaim is located about 200 miles west of Baghdad. Mohammed Fathi, spokesman for the governor of Iraq's western Anbar province that includes Qaim, said the border crossing had already been closed to traffic because of the civil war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVDbJKlW0m8 Edited July 19, 2012 by Roger Sanchez

[Lord Protector]

Sirija će najverovatnije platiti punu cenu građanskog rata zbog njihove podrške Hezbolahu i njegovim terorističkim akcijama. Da se ne zavaravamo, sever Izraela bi bio zasut raketama da se USA i Izrael odluče za vojnu intervenciju protiv Irana a da u međuvremenu ne otklone pretnju sa severa. Napad na Iran se izgleda bliži zato što se saveznicima žuri da pacifikuju Siriju. To su dve povezane stvari. Izrael se gadno opekao 2000-te godine sa Hezbolahom u Libanu, i na njega se gleda kao na svog smrtnog neprijatelja (što on u suštini i jeste). Promena režima u Siriji je u domenu operativnog, shebavanje Hezbolaha je u domenu taktičkog a napad na Iran je u domenu strateškog. Ko misli da je demokratija u neprijateljskoj zemlji strateško pitanje, ima više nego naivan pogled na celu stvar. Da je strateški cilj demokratija i ljudska prava oni bi se tražili svuda, bez izuzetka. A ne traže se, traže se od slučaja do slučaja, dakle pitanje je operativnog delovanja. Najniže na lestvici.

Edited July 20, 2012 by slow

[Sirius]

Da, zaboravio sam mozda najznacajnijeg igraca koji zeli da Asad ostane na vlast a to je Iran tj. Hezbolah.Evo, sada javljaju da se pobunjenici povlace iz delova Damaska, konkretno Midan.

[Sirius]

Zaboravio sam i PKK(radnicka partija Kurdistana) kao i PLO(PLO parties condemn Damascus 'terrorist attacks'), koji su isto za Asada. Upravo sada gledam etnicku/religijisku strukturu Sirija. Oko 25% cine Alaviti, Hriscani i Druze. Od 75% Sunita 9% cine Kurdi.Rekao bih da se situacija prilicno razlikuje od one u Libiji. Uzgred, Iran je prvi podrzao skidanje Gadafija. Ako i kada Asad padne, novi sunitski vladar ce imati puno problema sa sitskim milicijama iz Iraka, Hezbulahom kao i PKK. Plus, 25% populacije koja je drugog religijiskog opredeljenja od vecine koncetrisani uglavnom u jednom regionu(Mediteranska obala Sirije)gde se nalazi i strana vojska koja ih podrzava. Da, rekao bih da se situacija prilicno razlikuje od one u Libiji.

[Gandalf]

Suez kontrolise egipatska vojska koja je finansirana iz Vasingtona. Ta ista vojska je napravila drzavni udar i prilicno ogranicila civilnu vlast.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Gandalf