Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien

APEX · 19. September 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Das Kommentar unter dem Artikel ist gut:

Anzeige

Melcos · 20. September 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

JFK wollte ja auch die CIA ausmisten.

Syrer wollen keine Einmischung in innere Angelegenheiten ihres Landes - Oppositionschef

17:34 05/09/2012
Die gesamte syrische Gesellschaft wendet sich trotz der schwierigen innenpolitischen Situation gegen eine äußere Einmischung, so Fateh Muhammad Jamus, Chef der syrischen Parlamentsopposition und Mitglied des Politbüros der „Koalition der Kräfte für friedliche Wandlungen“, am Mittwoch auf einer Pressekonferenz bei RIA Novosti.

Die gesamte syrische Gesellschaft wendet sich trotz der schwierigen innenpolitischen Situation gegen eine äußere Einmischung, so Fateh Muhammad Jamus, Chef der syrischen Parlamentsopposition und Mitglied des Politbüros der „Koalition der Kräfte für friedliche Wandlungen“, am Mittwoch auf einer Pressekonferenz bei RIA Novosti.

„Die Situation in Syrien ist im Großen und Ganzen instabil. Sowohl die geographische als auch die demographische Struktur Syriens ist sehr brüchig. Trotz alledem wendet sich die gesamte syrische Gesellschaft gegen eine äußere Einmischung“, sagte der Oppositionsführer.

Der Syrien-Konflikt dauert seit März 2011 an. Laut Uno-Angaben sind seit dem Ausbruch der gewalttätigen Auseinandersetzungen zwischen der Opposition und den Regierungskräften insgesamt 17 000 Menschen getötet worden. Die Länder des Westens und eine Reihe von arabischen Staaten fordern den Rücktritt des syrischen Präsidenten Baschar al-Assad. Mit diesem Schritt könnte ihrer Meinung nach die Gewalt eingestellt werden. Russland und China befürchten jedoch, dass eine ausländische Einmischung in die Situation in Syrien und die Untergrabung seiner Staatlichkeit zu einer Ausweitung des Konfliktes führen würden.

Klicke in dieses Feld, um es in vollständiger Größe anzuzeigen.

Dumm nur für die Syrer, dass Syrien auf einer Liste der Staaten steht, die den USA feindlich gesinnt sind und daher eine Bdrohung darstellen.

Iran verspricht Syrien Hilfe im Fall eines US-Angriffs

13:55 02/09/2012
Der Iran hat der Regierung in Damaskus einem Agenturbericht zufolge Hilfe zugesichert, sollte Syrien von den USA attackiert werden.

Der Iran hat der Regierung in Damaskus einem Agenturbericht zufolge Hilfe zugesichert, sollte Syrien von den USA attackiert werden.

„Wenn Amerika Syrien angreift, wird der Iran gemeinsam mit Syriens Alliierten Maßnahmen ergreifen, die zu einem Fiasko Amerikas führen werden“, sagte Mohammad Ali Assoudi, Propaganda-Beauftragter der iranischen Elite-Einheit Islamische Revolutionsgarden, nach Angaben der Agentur Reuters. Im Fall eines US-Angriffs auf Syrien werde der Iran seinen Verpflichtungen aus dem Militärpakt mit Damaskus nachkommen.

Assoudis Äußerungen wurden auf der regierungsnahen iranischen Webseite Young Journalists' Club veröffentlicht, jedoch kurz danach wieder gelöscht, so Reuters. Dennoch wurde die Nachricht von vielen iranischen Medien übernommen. Der Iran und Syrien hatten 2006 einen bilateralen Vertrag über militärische Zusammenarbeit geschlossen. Seine Details sind nicht öffentlich bekannt.

In Syrien dauern seit fast anderthalb Jahren Kämpfe zwischen Armee und Regierungsgegnern an. Laut UN-Angaben sind bei den Gefechten insgesamt etwa 17 000 Menschen getötet worden. Die syrischen Behörden sprechen von 8000 Toten. Die Opposition aber auch westliche Staaten wollen Assad zum Rücktritt zwingen. Die UN-Vetomächte Russland und China lehnen ein internationales Eingreifen in Syrien ab. Nach den Worten des russischen Außenministers Sergej Lawrow weiß Assad noch immer einen bedeutenden Teil der Bevölkerung hinter sich.

RIA Novosti

Klicke in dieses Feld, um es in vollständiger Größe anzuzeigen.

Ob sie mit einem Angriff, einen Angriff mit konventionellen Waffen sprich Panzer und Flugzeuge meinen? Oder fallen da auch Einsätze von Spezialeinheiten darunter?

Boracay · 21. September 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Und was wollen die tun? Mit ihren hochmodernen Luftflotten US Trägerverbände angreifen?

Sorry, aber da kriegt man ja nen Lachkrampf....

Melcos · 21. September 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Zugegeben keine Armee der Welt würde einen konventionellen Krieg gegen die US-Armee führen wollen. Auch China nicht, und der Iran erst recht nicht. Das Stichwort heißt asymmetrische Kriegsführung.

Die mächtigste Waffe die der Iran hat ist die Straße von Hormuz. Der Iran könnte diesen wichtigen Seeweg verminen. Das hätte globale Auswirkungen, denn durch diese Meeresenge werden 35% des auf dem Seeweg transportieren Erdöls verschifft hinzu kommen große Mengen an Flüssiggas. Deshalb hat auch die USA in letzter Zeit Übungen durchgeführt in denen Wasserminen entschärft wurden. Das ist dann leider nicht mehr zum lachen

Das Schlimme an dieser Situation ist, man weiß nicht wer die Entscheidungen im Iran trifft. An wenn man sich wenden müsste im Falle einer möglichen Eskalation. Es gibt kein rotes Telefon wie zu Zeiten des Kalten Krieges zwischen den USA und Russland.

----

Angeblich ist der Iran auch mit Beratern vor Ort in Syrien. Der Iran würde sich auch militärisch einmischen, sollte Syrien zu stark geschwächt werden.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards commander says its troops in Syria
Sun, Sep 16 2012

By Marcus George

DUBAI (Reuters) - Members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) are providing non-military assistance in Syria and Iran may get involved militarily if its closest ally comes under attack, commander-in-chief Mohammad Ali Jafari said on Sunday.

Jafari's statement is the first official acknowledgement that Iran has a military presence on the ground in Syria where an 18-month-old uprising has left tens of thousands dead.

Western countries and Syrian opposition groups have long suspected Iran has troops in Syria. Iran has denied this.

"A number of members of the Qods force are present in Syria but this does not constitute a military presence," Iranian news agency ISNA quoted Jafari as saying at a news conference.

Qods is an IRGC unit set up to export Iran's ideology. It has been accused of plotting attacks inside Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Jafari did not indicate how many IRGC members were in Syria but said they were providing "intellectual and advisory help".

The Islamic Republic has backed Syria's President Bashar al-Assad since the crisis began and regards his rule as a key part of its axis of resistance against Israel and Sunni Arab states.

Jafari also said Iran would change its policy and offer military backing if Syria came under attack.

"I say specifically that if Syria came under military attack, Iran would also give military support but it ... totally depends on the circumstances," he said.

U.S. officials this month accused Iraq of facilitating the transfer of weapons to Syria by opening its airspace to Iranian aircraft. Baghdad has denied the accusation.

Analysts say that losing its key Syrian ally would weaken the Islamic Republic's ability to threaten Israel through the Syrian-backed Shi'ite resistance movement Hezbollah.

Jafari dismissed Israel's threats of attack on Iran, saying Israel was having trouble persuading the United States to back its actions.

"Our answer to Israel is clear. In the face of such actions by the Zionist regime, nothing of Israel would remain," he said.

He said any Israeli attack on Iran would also trigger retaliatory action on U.S. bases in the region and that trade via the Strait of Hormuz would be disrupted.

An attack on Iran would also call into question Iran's commitment to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), he said, comments that will cause concern among Western diplomats who want to find a peaceful resolution to Iran's nuclear program and avoid military consequences.

"If international organizations cannot stop Israel, Iran will not see itself as committed to its obligations. Of course this does not mean that we will go in the direction of a nuclear bomb," Jafari said.

Three rounds of talks earlier this year between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries - the United States, Russia, China, Germany, France and Britain - have so far failed to reach agreement on Iran's nuclear activities which the U.S. believes are targeted at developing a weapons capability.

The West is demanding that Tehran halts all high-grade enrichment, close its Fordo nuclear facility and ship out all stocks of high-grade uranium.

Tehran maintains its nuclear program is entirely peaceful.

Reuters

Klicke in dieses Feld, um es in vollständiger Größe anzuzeigen.

Boracay · 21. September 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Nur temporär. Die wieder frei zu machen sollte keine wirkliche Herausforderung für die US Marine sein. Es wäre aber unter Garantie die völlig Vernichtung sämtlicher offensiver Fährigkeiten des Iran - in wenigen Tage wäre er seine Komplette Luftwaffe und seine Komplette Luftwaffe los. In wenigen Wochen fast alle schweren Waffen.

Nein, aber auch keinen militärischen Patt, sondern ganz klar: US mit völlig überlegen Waffen, Iran mit uraltem Zeug.

Natürlich könnten die USA den Iran nie dauerhaft besetzen, aber das müssen sie ja auch nicht.

Melcos · 26. September 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Das reicht nicht. Die globale Wirtschaft schwächelt und der Ölpreis ist bei $110 pro Barrel. Die USA müssen verhindern, dass Minen gelegt werden. Alles andere kostet die USA enorm an Glaubwürdigkeit was ihre militärischen Fähigkeiten anbelangt. Dazu kommt der wahrscheinliche Ölpreis-Schock auf die Weltwirtschaft, der einige hundert Milliarden Dollar betragen dürfte, und die Weltwirtschaft erst recht auf Talfahrt bringen würde. Denn es werden immerhin 20% des weltweit gehandelten Erdöls durch die Straße von Hormuz verschifft.

Auch das düfte nicht einfach werden. Der Iran hat militärisch durchaus was zu bieten. Dazu gehören auch einige der besten Luftabwehrsysteme. Ohne Verluste wird man den Iran nicht angreifen können. Der Iran würde auch nicht wirklich mit konventionellen Waffen zurückschlagen. Vielmehr müsste man sich auf Anschläge und Sabotageaktionen einstellen.

Es ist schon ein Patt, wenn auch ein politisches. Beide Seiten können es sich nicht wirklich leisten einen Krieg zu führen. Ein militärischer Sieg wäre nur zu dem Preis einer vollständigen Besetzung möglich. Da dies die USA nicht bewerkstelligen können würde ein Luftkrieg gegen das iranische Regime dieses zwar entscheidend schwächen, doch ob es dann gestürzt werden kann ist fraglich. Zweifellos wäre die Infrastruktur des Iran danach größtenteils zerstört. Doch Anschläge gegen die USA kann das iranische Regime dann wahrscheinlich immer noch durchführen. Und dies sogar mit einer richtig guten Begründung.

Iran, the U.S. and the Strait of Hormuz Crisis
January 17, 2012 | 1222 GMT

By George Friedman

The United States reportedly sent a letter to Iran via multiple intermediaries last week warning Tehran that any attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz constituted a red line for Washington. The same week, a chemist associated with Iran's nuclear program was killed in Tehran. In Ankara, Iranian parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani met with Turkish officials and has been floating hints of flexibility in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.

This week, a routine rotation of U.S. aircraft carriers is taking place in the Middle East, with the potential for three carrier strike groups to be on station in the U.S. Fifth Fleet's area of operations and a fourth carrier strike group based in Japan about a week's transit from the region. Next week, Gen. Michael Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will travel to Israel to meet with senior Israeli officials. And Iran is scheduling another set of war games in the Persian Gulf for February that will focus on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' irregular tactics for closing the Strait of Hormuz.

While tensions are escalating in the Persian Gulf, the financial crisis in Europe has continued, with downgrades in France's credit rating the latest blow. Meanwhile, China continued its struggle to maintain exports in the face of economic weakness among its major customers while inflation continued to increase the cost of Chinese exports.

Fundamental changes in how Europe and China work and their long-term consequences represent the major systemic shifts in the international system. In the more immediate future, however, the U.S.-Iranian dynamic has the most serious potential consequences for the world.

The U.S.-Iranian Dynamic

The increasing tensions in the region are not unexpected. As we have argued for some time, the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the subsequent decision to withdraw created a massive power vacuum in Iraq that Iran needed -- and was able -- to fill. Iran and Iraq fought a brutal war in the 1980s that caused about 1 million Iranian casualties, and Iran's fundamental national interest is assuring that no Iraqi regime able to threaten Iranian national security re-emerges. The U.S. invasion and withdrawal from Iraq provided Iran an opportunity to secure its western frontier, one it could not pass on.

If Iran does come to have a dominant influence in Iraq -- and I don't mean Iran turning Iraq into a satellite -- several things follow. Most important, the status of the Arabian Peninsula is subject to change. On paper, Iran has the most substantial conventional military force of any nation in the Persian Gulf. Absent outside players, power on paper is not insignificant. While technologically sophisticated, the military strength of the Arabian Peninsula nations on paper is much smaller, and they lack the Iranian military's ideologically committed manpower.

But Iran's direct military power is more the backdrop than the main engine of Iranian power. It is the strength of Tehran's covert capabilities and influence that makes Iran significant. Iran's covert intelligence capability is quite good. It has spent decades building political alliances by a range of means, and not only by nefarious methods. The Iranians have worked among the Shia, but not exclusively so; they have built a network of influence among a range of classes and religious and ethnic groups. And they have systematically built alliances and relationships with significant figures to counter overt U.S. power. With U.S. military power departing Iraq, Iran's relationships become all the more valuable.

The withdrawal of U.S. forces has had a profound psychological impact on the political elites of the Persian Gulf. Since the decline of British power after World War II, the United States has been the guarantor of the Arabian Peninsula's elites and therefore of the flow of oil from the region. The foundation of that guarantee has been military power, as seen in the response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The United States still has substantial military power in the Persian Gulf, and its air and naval forces could likely cope with any overt provocation by Iran.

But that's not how the Iranians operate. For all their rhetoric, they are cautious in their policies. This does not mean they are passive. It simply means that they avoid high-risk moves. They will rely on their covert capabilities and relationships. Those relationships now exist in an environment in which many reasonable Arab leaders see a shift in the balance of power, with the United States growing weaker and less predictable in the region and Iran becoming stronger. This provides fertile soil for Iranian allies to pressure regional regimes into accommodations with Iran.

The Syrian Angle

Events in Syria compound this situation. The purported imminent collapse of Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime in Syria has proved less imminent than many in the West imagined. At the same time, the isolation of the al Assad regime by the West -- and more important, by other Arab countries -- has created a situation where the regime is more dependent than ever on Iran.

Should the al Assad regime -- or the Syrian regime without al Assad -- survive, Iran would therefore enjoy tremendous influence with Syria, as well as with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The current course in Iraq coupled with the survival of an Alawite regime in Syria would create an Iranian sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. This would represent a fundamental shift in the regional balance of power and probably would redefine Iranian relations with the Arabian Peninsula. This is obviously in Iran's interest. It is not in the interests of the United States, however.

The United States has sought to head this off via a twofold response. Clandestinely, it has engaged in an active campaign of sabotage and assassination targeting Iran's nuclear efforts. Publicly, it has created a sanctions regime against Iran, most recently targeting Iran's oil exports. However, the latter effort faces many challenges.

Japan, the No. 2 buyer of Iranian crude, has pledged its support but has not outlined concrete plans to reduce its purchases. The Chinese and Indians -- Iran's No. 1 and 3 buyers of crude, respectively -- will continue to buy from Iran despite increased U.S. pressure. In spite of U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's visit last week, the Chinese are not prepared to impose sanctions, and the Russians are not likely to enforce sanctions even if they agreed to them. Turkey is unwilling to create a confrontation with Iran and is trying to remain a vital trade conduit for the Iranians regardless of sanctions. At the same time, while the Europeans seem prepared to participate in harder-hitting sanctions on Iranian oil, they already have delayed action on these sanctions and certainly are in no position politically or otherwise to participate in military action. The European economic crisis is at root a political crisis, so even if the Europeans could add significant military weight, which they generally lack, concerted action of any sort is unlikely.

Neither, for that matter, does the United States have the ability to do much militarily. Invading Iran is out of the question. The mountainous geography of Iran, a nation of about 70 million people, makes direct occupation impossible given available American forces.

Air operations against Iran are an option, but they could not be confined to nuclear facilities. Iran still doesn't have nuclear weapons, and while nuclear weapons would compound the strategic problem, the problem would still exist without them. The center of gravity of Iran's power is the relative strength of its conventional forces in the region. Absent those, Iran would be less capable of wielding covert power, as the psychological matrix would shift.

An air campaign against Iran's conventional forces would play to American military strengths, but it has two problems. First, it would be an extended campaign, one lasting months. Iran's capabilities are large and dispersed, and as seen in Desert Storm and Kosovo against weaker opponents, such operations take a long time and are not guaranteed to be effective. Second, the Iranians have counters. One, of course, is the Strait of Hormuz. The second is the use of its special operations forces and allies in and out of the region to conduct terrorist attacks. An extended air campaign coupled with terrorist attacks could increase distrust of American power rather than increase it among U.S. allies, to say nothing of the question of whether Washington could sustain political support in a coalition or within the United States itself.

The Covert Option

The United States and Israel both have covert options as well. They have networks of influence in the region and highly capable covert forces, which they have said publicly that they would use to limit Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons without resorting to overt force. We assume, though we lack evidence, that the assassination of the Iranian chemist associated with the country's nuclear program last week was either a U.S. or Israeli operation or some combination of the two. Not only did it eliminate a scientist, it also bred insecurity and morale problems among those working on the program. It also signaled the region that the United States and Israel have options inside Iran.

The U.S. desire to support an Iranian anti-government movement generally has failed. Tehran showed in 2009 that it could suppress demonstrations, and it was obvious that the demonstrators did not have the widespread support needed to overcome such repression. Though the United States has sought to support internal dissidents in Iran since 1979, it has not succeeded in producing a meaningful threat to the clerical regime. Therefore, covert operations are being aimed directly at the nuclear program with the hope that successes there might ripple through other, more immediately significant sectors.

As we have long argued, the Iranians already have a "nuclear option," namely, the prospect of blockading the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 35 percent of seaborne crude and 20 percent of the world's traded oil passes daily. Doing so would hurt them, too, of course. But failing to deter an air or covert campaign, they might choose to close off the strait. Temporarily disrupting the flow of oil, even intermittently, could rapidly create a global economic crisis given the fragility of the world economy.

The United States does not want to see that. Washington will be extremely cautious in its actions unless it can act with a high degree of assurance that it can prevent such a disruption, something difficult to guarantee. It also will restrain Israel, which might have the ability to strike at a few nuclear facilities but lacks the force to completely eliminate the program much less target Iran's conventional capability and manage the consequences of that strike in the Strait of Hormuz. Only the United States could do all that, and given the possible consequences, it will be loathe to attempt it.

The United States continues, therefore, with sanctions and covert actions while Iran continues building its covert power in Iraq and in the region. Each will try to convince the region that its power will be supreme in a year. The region is skeptical of both, but will have to live with one of the two, or with an ongoing test of wills -- an unnerving prospect. Each side is seeking to magnify its power for psychological effect without crossing a red line that prompts the other to take extreme measures. Iran signals its willingness to attempt to close Hormuz and its development of nuclear weapons, but it doesn't cross the line to actually closing the strait or detonating a nuclear device. The United States pressures Iran and moves forces around, but it doesn't cross the red line of commencing military actions. Thus, each avoids triggering unacceptable actions by the other.

The problem for the United States is that the status quo ultimately works against it. If al Assad survives and if the situation in Iraq proceeds as it has been proceeding, then Iran is creating a reality that will define the region. The United States does not have a broad and effective coalition, and certainly not one that would rally in the event of war. It has only Israel, and Israel is as uneasy with direct military action as the United States is. It does not want to see a failed attack and it does not want to see more instability in the Arab world. For all its rhetoric, Israel has a weak hand to play. The only virtue of the American hand is that it is stronger -- but only relatively speaking.

For the United States, preventing the expansion of an Iranian sphere of influence is a primary concern. Iraq is going to be a difficult arena to stop Iran's expansion. Syria therefore is key at present. Al Assad appears weak, and his replacement by a Sunni government would limit -- but not destroy -- any Iranian sphere of influence. It would be a reversal for Iran, and the United States badly needs to apply one. But the problem is that the United States cannot be seen as the direct agent of regime change in Syria, and al Assad is not as weak as has been claimed. Even so, Syria is where the United States can work to block Iran without crossing Iran's red lines.

The normal outcome of a situation like this one, in which neither Iran nor the United States can afford to cross the other's red lines since the consequences would be too great for each, would be some sort of negotiation toward a longer-term accommodation. Ideology aside -- and the United States negotiating with the "Axis of Evil" or Iran with the "Great Satan" would be tough sells to their respective domestic audiences -- the problem with this is that it is difficult to see what each has to offer the other. What Iran wants -- a dominant position in the region and a redefinition of how oil revenues are allocated and distributed -- would make the United States dependent on Iran. What the United States wants -- an Iran that does not build a sphere of influence but instead remains within its borders -- would cost Iran a historic opportunity to assert its longstanding claims.

We find ourselves in a situation in which neither side wants to force the other into extreme steps and neither side is in a position to enter into broader accommodations. And that's what makes the situation dangerous. When fundamental issues are at stake, each side is in a position to profoundly harm the other if pressed, and neither side is in a position to negotiate a broad settlement, a long game of chess ensues. And in that game of chess, the possibilities of miscalculation, of a bluff that the other side mistakes for an action, are very real.

Europe and China are redefining the way the world works. But kingdoms run on oil, as someone once said, and a lot of oil comes through Hormuz. Iran may or may not be able to close the strait, and that reshapes Europe and China. The New Year thus begins where we expected: at the Strait of Hormuz.

"Iran, the U.S. and the Strait of Hormuz Crisis is republished with permission of Stratfor."

Klicke in dieses Feld, um es in vollständiger Größe anzuzeigen.

Für die Christen in Syrien wird die Lage zunehmend problematischer. Viele Denken an eine Flucht aus Syrien. Andere bewaffnen sich und schließen sich Assad im Kampf gegen die sunnitischen Rebellen an. Egal wie die Sache in Syrien ausgeht, die Gräben zwischen den religiösen Gruppen dürften danach noch tiefer sein und weitere Streitereien sind nicht auszuschließen.

Christians fear violent backlash from Syria uprising
Wed, Sep 12 2012

By Dominic Evans

(Reuters) - In a walled churchyard in the old city of Damascus, a small group of Syrians debate whether the time has come to flee one of Christianity's ancient heartlands.

Members of a Christian community which stretches back 2,000 years, they worry that Syria's civil war can have no happy outcome and they face an upheaval that fellow believers have already suffered elsewhere in the Middle East.

"The future is full of fear," said one man who gave only his first name, Rami. "We hope our fate will not be that of the Christians of Iraq, but nothing is guaranteed. Now we meet in church rather than cafes because we're afraid of being bombed."

Rami's friends were gathered at the Evangelical Church in the ancient Bab Touma quarter of Damascus - the city where Saint Paul began his mission to spread Christianity - a few days before Pope Benedict is due to visit neighboring Lebanon.

As evening shadows lengthened after a Sunday service, the young men and women found temporary sanctuary in the churchyard from the civil war which has already displaced many of them.

Anticipation of Benedict's Middle East trip has done little to lift the mood of despair which grips the estimated two million Christians in Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad is battling a 17-month-old uprising against his rule.

Few Christians have supported the revolt, fearful for their future if the country's majority Sunni Muslims choose an Islamist leadership to replace decades of ruthless but secular Assad family rule.

Neighboring Iraq, where sectarian violence after the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein forced half the Christians to flee, offers frightening parallels, while the revival of Sunni Islamists in the 2011 Arab uprisings in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt also fills Syria's Christians with foreboding.

Many now say they will be losers whatever the outcome of Assad's struggle to hold on to power - suffering alongside the rest of the country if the conflict persists, and particularly vulnerable if their fear of an Islamist victory comes to pass.

"I'm thinking about leaving the country if Islamists rule Syria," said a Catholic antiques trader in Damascus. "I expect reprisals against Christians."

FLEEING ALEPPO

Syria's Christians, who make up less than 10 percent of the 23 million population, include Greek Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Maronite and Melkite Greek Catholic faithful.

Already thousands have left, part of a larger tide of displaced Syrians escaping the conflict in which opposition groups say 27,000 people have died.

Amid the relentless and increasingly sectarian violence, it is hard to know whether Christians have been victims of targeted attacks or swept up in the broader, indiscriminate bloodshed.

The Syriac Orthodox Archbishop of Aleppo, Yohana Ibrahim, told Reuters that hundreds of Christian families had fled in recent weeks as rebels and soldiers battle for control of the country's biggest city.

"In its modern history Aleppo has not seen such critical and painful times as the last few weeks. Christians have been attacked and kidnapped in monstrous ways and their relatives have paid big sums for their release," he said.

In the central city of Homs, which saw the heaviest bloodshed earlier this year, he said several churches and Christian centers had been damaged in the fighting.

"Until a few months ago the idea of escaping had not crossed the minds of the Christians, but after the danger worsened it has become the main topic of conversation."

Many fled to Lebanon, Turkey, Cyprus or Egypt, while Armenian Christians in Aleppo were preparing to evacuate to Armenia, he said in emailed responses to questions.

"SIDING WITH THE REGIME"

Christian reluctance to join the revolt often goes further into outright support for the 47-year-old president, who himself is from a minority faith.

Assad's Alawite community, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam which has dominated the country's ruling class for four decades, is about the same size as the combined Christian population.

Paolo Dall'Oglio, an Italian Jesuit priest who was expelled from Syria in June after three decades in the country, said some priests and bishops were pressured into supporting Assad, while others did so because they sympathized with authorities.

"There are a lot of Christians that are against the regime, doing a lot of work, especially on humanitarian level in the street, for the people," he said by telephone. "(But) for cultural and security reasons, our religious leadership has sided with the regime and still are doing that."

Those perceived ties with the Syrian leadership are likely to fuel rebel resentment against Christians - a danger which Dall'Oglio said he warned of when the uprising first broke out.

"I said to the Vatican one and a half years ago: 'If we do nothing, we will be kicked out'. And this is what is happening," he said. "So this is nothing to be astonished about. A lot to be upset, sorrowed and bitter, but not to be astonished about."

Dall'Oglio, now an active supporter of the Syrian opposition, said Pope Benedict had always been clear in his support for freedom and rights.

"But the diplomacy of the Vatican has been very weak, probably weakened by the official attitudes of the local bishops and officials," he said, adding he had just completed an eight-day fast "for the pope's visit and the future of this country".

SPREADING FEAR

Some Christians have held prominent positions under Assad including defense minister Daoud Rajha, assassinated on July 18 in a bombing which killed three other top security officials.

Others have taken leading roles in the political opposition to Assad's rule, including the writer Michel Kilo who was jailed in 2007 for demanding reforms and George Sabra, who ran for presidency of the opposition Syrian National Council.

In an open letter to Christians last week, Sabra said it was not too late to throw their support behind the revolution.

"Your place in the ongoing battle for freedom across the country is still reserved, and your participation is requested," he wrote. "What is left of a Christian's Christianity if he is not with the cause of freedom and... building his country?"

Authorities "are spreading fabricated fear in your ranks about your Muslim brothers by talking about al Qaeda and extremist Salafists," Sabra said.

That message has had little impact in some quarters of Damascus, where Christians, Druzes and Shi'ite Muslims have formed armed vigilante groups allied to Assad against the mainly Sunni Muslim rebels.

"They want to force us to emigrate like in Iraq. To empty the region of Christians," said Youssef, outside the Damascus church. "At the start of the crisis we were neutral, although privately we were with the regime."

"But now we want to arm ourselves in self defense - we have relatives who have been killed".

Proud of their long history in Syria, which predates the Muslim presence by six centuries, Christians say their culture, literature and arts has been central to Syria's development.

"Syrian society needs Christians and this is what we want to stress to our children - that however hard the situation, they should be patient," said Gregorius Lahham, the Greek Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, in Turkey.

But in the courtyard of the Evangelical Church, his efforts to reassure cut little ice.

"Why is Benedict not coming to Damascus to defend our presence?" asked Lina, outside the church. "We are the foundation of this region. Christianity emerged from here and now we see it ending. We are the last Christians here."

Reuters

Klicke in dieses Feld, um es in vollständiger Größe anzuzeigen.

Boracay · 26. September 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Meinst du ernstahaft mit diesen "modernen Luftabwehrsystem" kann man auch nur irgendetwas gegen Marschflugkörper oder F-22 ausrichten? Da lach ich mich ja schlapp.

Ohne längere Besetzung wären die Verluste im Vergleich zu dem was die iranische Armee erdulden müsste geradezu lachhaft gering.

Anschläge auf was?

Wieso? Die Vernichtung sämtlicher offensiver Fähigkeiten des Irans ist doch ausreichend. Dlie Luftwaffe wäre wohl schon nach 2 Tagen nahezu komplett vernichtet, die Marine ebenfalls. Schweres Gerät am Boden zu zerstören dauert natürlich länger, aber auch hier allenfalls Wochen.

Politisch wäre das ganze für die USA ein Fiasko, ebenso wirtschaftlich. Aber militärisch nicht wirklich eine Herausforderung.

doomhsf · 26. September 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Die F-22 hat sich schon selber geschlagen, genauso wie die F-35. Rat mal, warum die F-22 nicht im Einsatz ist. Sie ist einfach nicht fähig dazu.

Melcos · 27. September 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Zu gegeben, dass die Iraner das moderne Luftabwehrsystem S-300 haben ist nicht bestätigt. Doch es könnte gegen Flugzeuge und ballistische Raketen eingesetzt werden. Allerdings reicht ein Luftabwehrsystem nicht. In der Luftabwehr ist der Iran eher schwach aufgestellt. Dafür setzt der Iran auf ein großes Arsenal ballistischer Raketen.

F-22 würden bei einem möglichen Angriff auf den Iran nicht eingesetzt werden.

Der Iran kann auf Grund seiner geographischen Gegebenheiten und der Größe des Gebiets nicht besetzt werden.

Ölraffenerien, Öl/Gas-Piplines, Tanker, Städte, Militärbasen, such dir was aus was den Terror maximieren würde. Entweder durch ballistische Raketen, Minen oder durch Aktionen vor Ort.

Der Iran hat vor allem Infanterie und eben die ballistischen Raketen. Dazu kommen unkonventionelle Waffen wie der Geheimdienstapparat oder eben die Straße von Hormuz.

Die ballistischen Raketen kann man durchaus mit der Luftwaffe zerstören. Doch damit kann man nicht die Infanterie besiegen und schon gar nicht einen Geheimdienst.

Ein Krieg gegen den Iran ist eher eine Sache von Monaten und selbst dann hat man nur die Infrastruktur zerstört.

U.S. Attack on Iran Would Take Hundreds of Planes, Ships, and Missiles
By Noah Shachtman, September 7, 2012

{img-src: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/09/050707-F-3961R-002.jpeg}
Two U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles and a B-2 bomber fly in formation. Photo: USAF

Should the U.S. actually take Benjamin Netanyahu’s advice and attack Iran, don’t expect a few sorties flown by a couple of fighter jocks. Setting back Iran’s nuclear efforts will need to be an all-out effort, with squadrons of bombers and fighter jets, teams of commandos, rings of interceptor missiles and whole Navy carrier strike groups — plus enough drones, surveillance gear, tanker aircraft and logistical support to make such a massive mission go. And all of it, at best, would buy the U.S. and Israel another decade of a nuke-free Iran.

There’s been a lot of loose talk and leaked tales about what an attack on Iran might ultimately entail. Anthony Cordesman, one of Washington’s best-connected defense analysts, has put together a remarkably detailed inventory of what it would take to strike Iran (.pdf), cataloging everything from the number of bombers required to the types of bombs they ought to carry. He analyzes both Israeli and American strikes, both nuclear and not. He examines possible Iranian counterattacks, and ways to neutralize them. It leads Cordesman to a two-fold conclusion:

* “Israel does not have the capability to carry out preventive strikes that could do more than delay Iran’s efforts for a year or two.” Despite the increasingly sharp rhetoric coming out of Jerusalem, the idea of Israel launching a unilateral attack is almost as bad as allowing Tehran to continue its nuclear work unchallenged. It would invite wave after wave of Iranian counterattacks — by missile, terrorist, and boat — jeopardizing countries throughout the region. It would wreak havoc with the world’s oil supply. And that’s if Israel even manages to pull the mission off — something Cordesman very much doubts.

* The U.S. might be able to delay the nuclear program for up to 10 years. But to do so, it’ll be an enormous undertaking. The initial air strike alone will “require a large force allocation [including] the main bomber force, the suppression of enemy air defense system, escort aircraft for the protection of the bombers, electronic warfare for detection and jamming purposes, fighter sweep and combat air patrol to counter any air retaliation by Iran.”

But the first attack might actually be the easy part, writes Cordesman, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

{img-src: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/09/cordesman-2-660x495.jpg}
A depiction of the ballistic-missile battle that could follow an American strike on Iran. Illo: CSIS

At the same time, the U.S. has to keep Iran from blocking the ultra-important Strait of Hormuz, the 21-mile-wide waterway through which flows around 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquid natural gas supplies. And America has to protect its energy-producing allies in the Persian Gulf, or else there will be no oil or gas to send through the Strait.

That will be no mean task, Cordesman writes: “Iran can cherry pick its targets in an effort to pressure and intimidate the U.S. and Southern Gulf states. It can use long-range conventionally armed missiles or drones against large military or urban targets as terror weapons. It can attack sporadically and unpredictably in a war of attrition or attempt to ‘swarm’ U.S. and Gulf naval forces.”

Some of this defensive work has already begun. To keep the Strait open, the U.S. has kept up a steady patrol of aircraft carriers and stationed gunboats, minesweepers, and robot subs in nearby Bahrain. To spot Iran’s missiles — many of which can hit their targets in as little as four minutes — the U.S. is building a next-generation X-band radar station in Qatar. To knock those short- and medium-range ballistic missiles out of the sky, America has sold billions of dollars’ worth of Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Air Defense interceptors to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Those anti-missiles will be augmented by U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers equipped with Aegis ballistic-missile defense systems — one of the most-proven components in the American interceptor stockpile.

But to make sure Tehran’s missiles don’t hit Riyadh or Kuwait City, the U.S. will have to take out Iran’s eight ballistic-missile bases and 15 missile production facilities, and 22 launch facilities if a preemptive strike is ever ordered. America will “need to destroy as many missile launchers as possible … in order to reduce number of incoming warheads,” Cordesman writes. Each target will require two aircraft each — either carrier-launched F/A-18s or F-15Es and F-16Cs flying from nearby air bases — for a total of 90 jets. Auxiliary targets could include Iran’s refineries, its power grid, its military bases, and its roads and bridges.

American jets and fighters will be pretty much free to fire at will — the Iranian air force is a joke, and its air defense systems don’t have the sensors or the networking to seriously threaten U.S. jets. Still, those air defenses and enemy fighters will have to be taken out before they manage to get off a lucky shot.

Drones will be deployed for further intelligence, “deception, jamming, harassment, or destruction of enemy forces and air defense systems.” Special operations forces will conduct “direct action missions, special reconnaissance, and provide terminal guidance for attacks against valuable enemy targets.” Somehow, attacks from Iran’s terrorist allies — including Hamas and Hezbollah — will have to be blunted, as well.

And then, of course, there’s the main attack.

{img-src: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/09/cordesman-1-660x493.jpg}

Destroying each of Iran’s five nuclear facilities will require a pair of B-2 bombers flying out of Diego Garcia. Every plane will carry two of the U.S. military next-gen, king-sized bunker-busters, the 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordinance Penetrator. The “GPS-guided weapon contain more than 5,300 pounds of conventional explosives inside a 20.5 foot-long bomb body of hardened steel. It is designed to penetrate dirt, rock and reinforced concrete to reach enemy bunker or tunnel installations,” writes Cordesman, who believes such a bomb can set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions for years.

Israel might — might — be able to pull off a similar strike, but only just barely. It’ll require using a quarter of the Israel Air Force’s fighters, and all of its tanker planes, leaving no aircraft for all these other secondary targets. The jets will have to hug the Syrian-Turkish border before flying over both Iraq and Iran. And that is not exactly friendly territory. “The number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted would be complex and high risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate,” Cordesman writes.

And even if the reactors are hit, the ”Iranian retaliation will have a devastating regional consequences,” he adds. You don’t even want to know what the Middle East would look like the day after Israel attempts a nuclear strike on Iran.

Which leaves the American attack option. It may be technically possible. “It’s clear that if the United States did it we would have a hell of a bigger impact,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in the spring. Cordesman would rather see negotiations instead: “The brief shows just how dangerous any war in the Gulf could be to the world’s economy.” Some politicians may be calling for a preemptive strike on Iran. There’s a reason military planners are so wary.

Noah Shachtman is a contributing editor at Wired magazine, a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution and the editor of this little blog right here.

Wired

Klicke in dieses Feld, um es in vollständiger Größe anzuzeigen.

Die Analyse von Anthony Cordesman ist zu empfehlen. Sie hat auch höher aufgelöste Bilder.

In der Analyse von Cordesman wird angegeben, dass eine Preissteigerung von $10/Barrel zu einem Verlust von 0.5% für das globale BIP des Folgejahrs führt. Eine Blockade der Straße von Hormuz würde definitiv zu mehr führen.

Nicht nur für die USA. Der Iran würde seine ganze Öl- und Gasproduktionsanlagen, wichtige Häfen und Straßen sowie sein marodes Stromnetz verlieren.

Auch militärisch ist der Iran durchaus anspruchsvoll. Denn es müssen ja neben den Nuklearanlagen und ballistischen Raketen, die zerstört werden sollen, noch die abgeschossenen ballistischen Raketen abgefangen werden und Anschläge abgewehrt werden. Bei den Anschlägen hat der Iran freie Hand.

----

Um nicht zu sehr Offtopic zu geraten sei noch angemerkt, dass es Überlegungen gibt im Zuge eines Krieges gegen den Iran auch gleich Syrien noch mit zu nehmen (Luftpost).

Melcos · 2. Oktober 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Ein Aspekt wurde noch nicht ausführlich beleuchtet: Wieso Saudi-Arabien und Qatar sich so in Syrien engagieren.

Wie der folgende Artikel zeigt, geht es Saudi-Arabien und Qatar darum den Einfluss des Irans zurückzudrängen. Dazu setzen sie auf ihre familiären Beziehungen zu Stämmen in Syrien. Der Konflikt zeigt auch gegensätzliche Interessen von Saudi-Arabien und der USA.

Kurz gesagt, Saudi-Arabien und Qatar führen einen Stellvertreterkrieg gegen den Iran in Syrien. Hauptgrund: die Religion.

Ein salafistisches Regime wie es von Saudi-Arabien & Qatar installiert werden will dürfte mit großer Sorge in Israel gesehen werden.

The Endless War: Saudi Arabia Goes on the Offensive Against Iran

By Felix Imonti | Wed, 22 August 2012 17:55

Saudi Arabia has gone on the offensive against Iran to protect its interests. Their involvement in Syria is the first battle in what is going to be a long bloody conflict that will know no frontiers or limits.

Ongoing Disorders in the island kingdom of Bahrain since February of 2011 have set off alarm bells in Riyadh. The Saudis are convinced that Iran is directing the protests and fear that the problems will spill over the twenty-five kilometer long COSWAY into oil rich Al-Qatif, where The bulk of the two million Shia in the kingdom are concentrated. So far, the Saudis have not had to deal with demonstrations a serious as those in Bahrain, but success in the island kingdom could encourage the protestors to become more violent.

Protecting the oil is the first concern of the government. Oil is the sole source of the national wealth and it is managed by the state owned Saudi Aramco Corporation. The monopoly of political power by the members of the Saud family means that all of the wealth of the kingdom is their personal property. Saudi Arabia is a company country with the twenty-eight million citizens the responsibility of the Saud Family rulers.

The customary manner of dealing with a problem by the patriarchal regime is to bury it in money. King Abdullah announced at the height of the Arab Spring that he was increasing the national budget by 130 billion dollars to be spent over the coming five years. Government salaries and the minimum wage were raised. New housing and other benefits are to be provided. At the same time, he plans to expand the security forces by sixty thousand men.

While the Saudi king seeks to sooth the unrest among the general population by adding more government benefits, he will not grant any concessions to the eight percent of the population that is Shia. He takes seriously the warning by King Abdullah of Jordan back in 2004 of the danger of a Shia Crescent that would extend from the coast of Lebanon to Afghanistan. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria, and the Shia controlled government of Iraq form the links in the chain.

When the Arab Spring reached Syria, the leaders in Riyadh were given the weapon to break the chain. Appeals from tribal leaders under attack in Syria to kinsmen in the Gulf States for assistance could not be ignored. The various blinks between the Gulf States in several Syrian tribes means that Saudi Arabia and its close ally Qatar have connections that include at least three million people out of the Syrian populations of twenty-three million. To show how deep the bonds go, the leader of the Nijris Tribe in Syria is married to a woman from the Saud Family.

It is no wonder that Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said in February that arming the Syrian rebels was an “excellent idea." He was supported by Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani who said, "We should do whatever necessary to help [the Syrian opposition], including giving them weapons to defend themselves." The intervention has the nature of a family and tribal issue that the prominent Saudi cleric Aidh al-Qarni has turned into a Sunni-Shia War by promoting Assad’s death.

The Saudis and their Qatar and United Arab Emirate allies have pledged one hundred million dollars to pay wages to the fighters. Many of the officers of the Free Syrian Army are from tribes connected to the Gulf. In effect, the payment of wages is paying members of associated tribes.

Here, the United States is not a welcomed partner, except as a supplier of arms. Saudi Arabia sees the role of the United States limited to being a wall of steel to protect the oil wealth of the Kingdom and the Gulf States from Iranian aggression. In February of 1945, President Roosevelt at a meeting in Egypt with Abdel Aziz bin Saud, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, pledged to defend the kingdom in exchange for a steady flow of oil.

Since those long ago days when the U.S. was establishing Pax Americana, the Saudis have lost their trust in the wisdom or the reliability of American policy makers. The Saudis urged the U.S. not to invade Iraq in 2003 only to have them ignore Saudi interests in maintaining an Iraqi buffer zone against Iran. The Saudis had asked the U.S. not to leave a Shia dominated government in Baghdad that would threaten the Northern frontier of the Kingdom, only to have the last American soldiers depart in December 2011. With revolution sweeping across the Middle East, Washington abandoned President Mubarak of Egypt, Saudi Arabia’s favorite non royal leader in the region.

Worried by the possibility of Iranian sponsored insurrections among Shia in the Gulf States, the Saudis are asserting their power in the region while they have the advantage. For thirty years, they have been engaged in a proxy war with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Syria is to be the next battlefield, but here, there is a critical difference from what were minor skirmishes in Lebanon, Yemen, and elsewhere. The Saudis with the aid of Qatar, and the UAE is striking at the core interests of Tehran; and they have through their tribal networks the advantage over an isolated Islamic Republic.

Tribal and kinship relations are being augmented by the infusion of the Salafi vision of Islam that is growing in the Gulf States. Money from the Gulf States has gone into the development of religious centers to spread the fundamentalist belief. A critical part of the ideology is to be anti-Shia.

Salafism in Saudi Arabia is promulgated by the Wahhabi School of Islam. The Wahhabi movement began in the eighteenth century and promoted a return to the fundamentalism of the early followers of the Faith.

The Sauds incorporated the religious movement into their leadership of the tribes. When the modern state of Saudi Arabia was formed, they were granted control of the educational system and much else in the society in exchange for the endorsement of the authoritarian rule.

When the Kingdom used its growing wealth in the 1970s to extend its interests far from the traditional territory in the battle against the atheistic Soviet Union, the Wahhabi clergy became missionaries in advancing their ideology through religious institutions to oppose the Soviets. More than two hundred thousand jihadists were sent into Afghanistan to fight the Soviet forces and succeeded in driving them out.

There is no longer a Soviet Union to confront. Today, the enemy is the Islamic Republic of Iran with what is described by the Wahhabis as a heretical form of Islam and its involvement in the Shia communities across the region. For thirteen centuries, the Shia have been kept under control. With the hand of Iran in the form of the Qud Force reaching into restless communities that number as many as one hundred and six million people in what is the heart of the Middle East, the Saudis see a desperate need to crush the foe before it has the means to pull down the privileged position of the Saud Family and the families of the other Gulf State rulers.

The war begins in Syria where we can expect that a successor government to Assad will be declared soon in the Saudi controlled tribal areas even before Assad is defeated. The territory is likely to adopt the more fundamentalist principals of the Salafists as it serves as a stepping stone to Iran Itself. It promises to be a bloody protracted war that will recognize no frontier and will know no limits by all of the participants.

By. Felix Imonti for Oilprice.com

Klicke in dieses Feld, um es in vollständiger Größe anzuzeigen.

LagutroP · 4. Oktober 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Eine abgefeuerte Granate.
Was soll man dazu sagen?
Das kann jeder gewesen sein. Sogar die Nato um damit zu bezwecken das wir bald auch die am Dampfen haben. Der ganze Nahe Oste ist so gesehen im *****. Fehlen nur noch wir Türken.

Eventuell kann man ja dadurch das ein oder andere Problem auch bei Seite schaffen.

Ich hoffe sogar das es Primär darum gehen wird wenn wir schon in den Krieg ziehen.
Alle die denken die können in so einem Gebiet ein eigenständiges Land aufbauen sollen mal sehen wie das ist wenn man gegen die Türkei Krieg führt.

Am liebesten wäre mir ja wenn Erdogan und Assad draufgehen.

Ein totaler Sonderschulbeitrag. Aber Wayne-.-

Malena · 4. Oktober 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Die Türkei hat mit Artilleriebeschuss geantwortet.

http://www.berliner-kurier.de/politik---wirtschaft/gefaehrliche-eskalation-tuerkische-artillerie-greift-ziele-in-syrien-an,7169228,20159638.html

klaiser · 5. Oktober 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Wenn Iran seine Verbündeten unterstützt, wird auch Russland eingreifen müssen und die haben Kaliber wo Amerika zurückschreckt. Solange Syrien ihre Streitigkeiten selbst lösen darf, sehe ich keine Probleme das kein Weltkrieg ausgelöst werden muss.

Türkei wurde von der PKK beschossen nicht von Assad.

Boracay · 5. Oktober 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Und aus welchem skurrilen Grund sollte Russland eingreifen müssen??? Noch dazu gegen die USA, wo sie mit konventionellen Waffen noch nicht mal im Ansatz sowas wie Gegner darstellen? So abartig behindert wäre nicht der verrückteste Obergefreite in Russland. Die USA wären bestimmt sowas von verdutzt über so eine offensichtlich gestörte und verrücke Aktion, die würden das vielleicht erst mal eine Woche beobachten bevor die wirklich was machen....

Was denn? Einen riesigen Haufen von schwer Alkoholisierten Soldaten, "hochmoderne" T-72 Panzer und SU27 Jagdflugzeuge??

Verteidigungsetat Russland: 58,6 Milliarden (nicht viel mehr als Deutschland)
Verteidigungsetat USA: 607 Milliarden

Was glaubst du wer da eine moderne Armee besitzt? Russlands Technik ist total veraltet, die haben keine Träger, keine schlagkräftige Luftflotte, die Alkoholismus ist sehr weit verbreitet,.... das ist doch ein Witz....

Und noch dazu: Warum sollten die so dumm sein sich da einzumischen?

Ja klar, wegen so einem unbedeutenden Drecksland kommt es zum drittel Weltkrieg.... LOL

Assad hatte natürlich nie vor die Türkei zu beschießen, der ist ja nicht lebensmüde... Ein Angriff der Türkei wäre die völlig Vernichtung der syrischen Armee innerhalb weniger Wochen. Ganz ohne USA.

Ist halt passiert und es wäre schon ein cleverer Schachzug von den Rebellen da mal rüber zu feuern....

bushido · 5. Oktober 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Vom Ausland unterstützte Al Kaida Terroristen, die damit eine Mutter und vier Kinder ermordet haben. Wirklich clever...

----------------------------

So wie es aussieht sind wieder Mörsergranaten auf türkischem Territorium eingeschlagen.

BBC News - Turkey returns fire after fresh Syria shelling

Die Syrer haben nach türkischen Angaben ihre Truppen von der türkischen Grenze abgezogen.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middle-east/2012/10/05/turkey-syria-pulls-back-tanks-from-turkish-border/Aunt1jWbWMuBSsSrs4LrjP/story.html

Damit ist es schon fast lächerlich offensichtlich, wer dafür verantwortlich ist.

Boracay · 5. Oktober 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Ja, du nennst sie doch selbst Terroristen? Ist doch denen Schnurz wer da drauf geht...

Dem Begriff Terrorist würde ich zustimmen, schließlich sind die meisten davon Anhänger einer primitiven Religion, so wie Erdogan auch.

Es ist aber doch trotzdem ein cleverer Schachzug?

Wenn du deinen hohlen Satz nur angebracht hast um festzustellen dass Assad ja so toll (ähnlich wie Gaddafi) und die Rebellen ja so bösen sind, dann muss ich sagen:

Assad hätte viele Jahre die Chance gehabt sich die Unterstützung der Syrer (die in weiten Teilen der Bevölkerung sicherlich da ist) durch Wahlen legitimieren zu lassen. Das wurde aber unterlassen.
Jetzt ist es von einem "der Westen ist böse, die Musel-Terroristen sind mir aber auch suspekt" Typen wie dir, leicht zu behaupten:

- Die Mehrheit steht hinter Assad.

Da es ja nie Wahlen gab (wohl aus einem für Assad guten Grund) kann man diese Aussage aber da hin kloppen wo sie hingehört. Auf den Müll.

Meine persönliche Meinung: Die syrische Armee sollte diese Drecksäcke alle zusammenschießen und an den Eiern aufhängen. Ganz egal ob die von der Bevölkerung unterstützt werden oder nicht. So religöse Drecksäcke gehören nirgendwo an die Regierung.

doomhsf · 5. Oktober 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Es ist kein cleverer Schachzug, da es viel zu offensichtlich ist. Und solange nicht bestätigt ist, dass die Granaten von der syrischen Armee kommen, gibt es eigentlich nichtmal einen Grund für einen "Vergeltungsschlag". Sollte Erdogan deswegen einen Krieg anzetteln, würde er wohl ziemlich alleine sein. Weder die EU, noch Nordamerika wollen einen Krieg. Ganz zu schweigen von den Bevölkerungen, die sich nicht mehr sowas wie im Irak erzählen lassen werden.

Alles Seiten rufen zur Besonnenheit auf, denn jeder weiß, dass keiner Soldaten opfern will/darf/kann. Die Zeiten haben sich geändert.

PS: Es wird in der jetzigen Situation und mit den jetzigen Personen niemals einen Krieg zwischen den USA und Russland geben.

Boracay · 5. Oktober 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Das sollte für die Türkei keine militärische Herausforderung darstellen.

Es ist einfach nur total gehirnamputiert dass so ein Schwachsinn hier im Forum überhaupt erwähnt wird.

bushido · 6. Oktober 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Erdogan hat nicht mal das eigene Volk vollständig hinter sich. Innenpolitisch ist das nicht ganz ungefährlich.

Außerdem weiß die ganze Welt, dass die Terroristen, die den Bürgerkrieg in Syrien angezettelt haben, in der Türkei ausgebildet und von arabischen und westlichen Terrorstaaten ausgerüstet werden.

Und du willst auf die 40 zugehen? Du hast den Umgangston eines asozialen Halbstarken.

klaiser · 6. Oktober 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Russland ist ein Bär der Winterschlaf hält, wenn es hart auf hart kommt mobilisieren sie ihre Streitkraft dann sieht die USA alt aus.(China wird sie zzgl. mit unterstützen) Wenn Iran angegriffen wird oder Unterstützung braucht wird Russland nicht tatenlos zusehen.

Die USA wird dieses Etat nicht lange aufrecht erhalten können, die sind Pleite.

Boracay · 6. Oktober 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Geil!! Was mobilisieren die dann? T-52 Panzer und MIG21 Flugzeuge? LOL

Der technische Stand der russischen Armee ist Jahrzehnte hinter denen in den USA zurück und für weitere Entwicklungen fehlt denen schlichtweg das Geld. Sogar der alte Schrott der in den USA auf Halde steht ist dem Russenzeug um Lichtjahre überlegen.

Genau China hat große Lust dazu sich mit seiner total mies ausgerüsteten Armee mit den USA anzulegen und die Weltwirtschaft gegen die Wand zu fahren. Wegen des Iran

Und warum???? Weil die Russen ständig besoffen und und völlig irrationale Entscheidungen treffen?
Was hast du geraucht?

Ja, der Wunschtraum aller Weltverbesserer seit 40 Jahren.

bushido · 6. Oktober 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Und du Militärexperte kennst natürlich den militärischen Stand der Russen und Chinesen. Lernt man das auch auf dem Bauernhof?

Übrigens wird es keinen Krieg mit konventionellen Waffen zwischen den Großmächten geben und die russischen und chinesischen Atomraketen würden im Falle eines Nuklearkrieges das europäische und amerikanische Festland schon erreichen.

Nein, das Wissen, daß noch JEDE Papierwährung irgendwann gescheitert ist! Und vor genau dem Problem stehen die USA, so wie auch Europa.

Aber woher soll das ein Bauer auch wissen.

doomhsf · 6. Oktober 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Mal abgesehen davon, dass solche Rechenspiele nichts bringen, weil viele andere Faktoren bei einem Krieg dazu kommen würden, sind seine Behauptungen auch nicht wirklich aktuell.

bushido · 6. Oktober 2012

AW: Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien / Medienpropaganda

Völlig richtig. Zudem haben auch Russen und Chinesen sicherlich nicht alle ihre militärischen Geheimnisse der Öffentlichkeit preisgegeben.

APEX · 12. Oktober 2012

Die Provokationen der Türkei werden immer unverschämter

Die Provokationen der Türkei werden immer unverschämter

Die türkischen Provokationen Syriens fanden in der Entführung einer Linienmaschine am Weg von Moskau nach Damaskus einen neuen Höhepunkt. Ein Staat, der die kurdischen Freiheitsbestrebungen im eigenen Land mit brutalsten Mitteln unterdrückt, unterstützt offen Terrorismus auf syrischem Staatsgebiet. Fast täglich werden durch türkische Militärs syrische Ziele angegriffen. Der türkischen Zeitung Yurk zufolge stammte die Granate, die am 3. Oktober in Akçakale eine Frau und vier Kinder getötet hatte, aus NATO-Beständen.

Am Mittwoch wurde eine syrische Passagiermaschine von F-16 Fighter-Jets in der Türkei zur Landung gezwungen. Von türkischer Seite wird behauptet, an Bord hätten sich militärische Güter befunden, was den Regelungen des internationalen Luftverkehrs widerspricht.

Beweise für diese Behauptung liegen natürlich keine vor und es werden sich auch keine erbringen lassen. Denn selbst wenn es der Türkei gelingen sollte, militärisch verwendbares Material zu präsentieren, was sagt dies aus? Wie ließe sich eine zweifelsfreie Bestätigung erbringen, dass diese Gegenstände nicht nachträglich der beschlagnahmten Fracht hinzugefügt wurden?

Wieder einmal gelingt es der Türkei, sich eine Provokation sondergleichen zu erlauben, ohne dass die sogenannte internationale Gemeinschaft mit entsprechenden Protesten reagiert. Zwar hat der russische Präsident Vladimir Putin ein bereits geplantes Treffen mit dem türkischen Premierminister Erdogan abgesagt, doch der Rest der Welt verhält sich ausnehmend zurückhaltend.

...

...

Klicke in dieses Feld, um es in vollständiger Größe anzuzeigen.

Die Provokationen der Türkei werden immer unverschämter | The Intelligence

Was interessant daran ist könnt Ihr hier lesen.

Türkei wirft Israel Staatsterrorismus vor

Angriff auf Gaza-Hilfsschiffe: Türkei wirft Israel Staatsterrorismus vor - Politik | STERN.DE

Also, die türkischen Flotten werden angegriffen, Die Türkei und Konsorten flippen total aus und werfen Israel vor wie "Piraten" zu handeln.

Jetzt holen Kampfjets der Türkei ein Syrisches Linienflugzeug runter, durchsstöbern den Frachtraum und treiben da ihr Unwesen.

Das ist dann keine Piraterie.

Selbst die Welt hinterfragt den Hintergrund der Zwangslandung.

Syrisches Flugzeug hatte laut Türkei Munition aus Russland an Bord

Syrien : Syrisches Flugzeug hatte laut Türkei Munition aus Russland an Bord - Nachrichten - DIE WELT

Türkische Jets zwingen syrisches Flugzeug zur Landung

Türkische Jets zwingen syrisches Flugzeug zur Landung - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Auf jedenfall wurde irgendwas im Frachtraum gefunden:

Erdogan bestätigt Waffenmaterial-Fund in syrischem Flugzeug

300kg Empfänger und Antennen.......

http://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/erdogan-bestaetigt-waffenmaterial-fund-in-syrischem-flugzeug-1907825.html

Russland äußerste sich nicht wirklich groß dazu und auch der Rest bleibt ganz gelassen. Ich weiss nicht was ich davon halten soll.

Ich halte das Vorgehen der Türkei eher für fraglich und heuchlerisch.
Erdogan ist ein wirklich kranker Mensch und es wird echt Zeit das der Typ seinen Platz räumt.
FSA Terroristen bilden sich auch nicht selber aus und werden schliesslich auch direkt aus der Türkei nach Syrien geschickt.

Man versucht mit allen Mitteln einen Krieg gegen Syrien herbeizurufen der wieder letztendlich mit einem Eingreifen der NATO endet.

Gruß

Nützliche Suchen

Aktuelle Infos zur Lage in Syrien

Videos zum Themenbereich