Slashdot Mirror
No New S-300 Air-Defense System To Syria Says Russia — But Maybe Old Ones
An anonymous reader writes "Yesterday, Russia's Foreign Minister declared that Moscow would not sell any new surface-to-air missiles to Syria, although there is a catch. He said old contracts are being honored. Could old contracts just be code for an already signed, but undisclosed deal for the S-300? Lavarov certainly left the door open: '...when questioned in particular about the S-300, his reply was not clear if the "earlier contracts" were for the S-300 or something else.' With Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu going to the Black Sea town of Sochi early next week for talks with President Vladimir Putin, it seems they may have something to talk about."
Just like genocide!
Usually the Israelis are pretty defiant but they have been unusually spooked
Unusual? How quickly we forget the cold war. Nations are standing back and watching Syria because in my youth Syria was to the east what Israel was to the west, nobody wants to be seen to be militarily supporting one side or the other since that risks dragging everyone into a much broader conflict. Both sides of the old "east/west"political divide want to contain the fighting within the borders of Syria much more than they want to their "dog" to win. This is why Israeli strikes on Syria and arms supplies to either side in Syria spook everyone.
UN voting patterns on subjects concerning Syria and Israel still more or less follows the patterns established during the cold war. Saddam was politically simple by comparison, he was our loose cannon and the old "red team" of nations didn't mind us taking him out, Gadaffi was dead the minute the revolt erupted, he had no powerful friends left, much less an influential voting block in the UN watching his back.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
S-300 is an intrinsically defensive weapon system...
Just like a shield is a defensive device, it is meant to be use together with an offensive one.
An advanced surface-to-air missile system can be used to protect a military nuclear facility, just like the one Syria had until it was taken out by Israel. Just think about what have happened would happen if Syria had continue the development of nuclear weapons at the time, and they fall under the wrong hands, which is quite possible given the current situation.
One wonders what could possibly go wrong regarding Syria.
Turkey claims evidence of Syrian chemical weapons use
UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use
An Al-Qaeda Alliance in Syria Demands Response From U.S.
Al Qaeda's track record with chemical weapons
Even if there are chemical weapons laying around, they would still need to get them somewhere where they could be used. They would probably need help for that. Is any available?
US teen accused of seeking to join al Qaeda-linked Syrian group
Danish jihadist killed while fighting for Muhajireen Brigade in Syria
Iran recruiting volunteer troops for Syria
Hezbollah Steps Up in Syria as Israel Tries to Ease Tension
US Congressman: Hezbollah agents in US worse than al-Qaida
Peter King warns: Hezbollah agents in U.S.
Border porous for obvious reason
Official: Book of suicide bombers found in Arizona desert
. . .the book is published in Iran and contains biographies of Islamic suicide bombers and other Islamic militants who died while carrying out their attacks. . .
Yes indeed, what could possibly go wrong?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
It's interesting that you bring up Yugoslavia. When Western troops got involved, they were generally pretty happy to let Croats and Bosniaks duke it out on Serbs, but for some reason not the other way around. So the siege of Sarajevo was treated as a war crime, but Operation Maslenica and Operation Storm were pretty much ignored. Ditto Kosovo, where NATO intervened on behalf of KLA (and US even went so far as to remove them from the list of terrorist organizations for the duration - usually it goes the other way, "freedom fighters" becoming "terrorists" later, this was a rare case of the other way around), but KFOR did nothing when de-facto independent after the war Kosovar communities started driving the few remaining Serbs out, burning down Orthodox churches etc.
So if Yugoslavia is your example of a successful humanitarian intervention, I very much hope that nothing of a kind takes place in Syria.
Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood are aligned. Turkey would very very much like for the US to intervene on the Turkish side (Turkey, the African Muslim Brotherhood nations like Egypt Libya etc, and the Syrian Al Qaeda called "Al Nusra"). So there is a possibility that this could be a "false flag" operation - in the same way that Al Nusra used chemical weapons on its own civilians in the last fortnight and accused Assad of doing this (hoping the US would leap in an help Al Qeada out, again).
In fact, The Muslim Brotherhood have cleverly worked out that they can use the power of the US to further their agenda as long as they claim to be moderate. See:
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/how-obama-lost-his-big-muslim-brotherhood-gamble/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/05/the-united-states-has-become-a-tool-of-muslim-brotherhood-expansionism.html
The Muslim Brotherhood is very very smart/cunning. After seeing NATO intervene on the side of the Bosian Muslims and Albanian Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo respectively the MB realised it could manipulate the US into doing its dirty work. That is exactly what is happening, and the US goes along with this because it believes the MB is a counter to Al Qaeda. Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood is merely the "good cop" role while Al Qaeda plays "bad cop"- their methods differ (non-violence versus violence) but their goals are completely aligned: all nations subjected to the Muslim political order under Sharia.
The US should let Assad crush the rebels (yes, this is bad, because Iran is involved, but it is far far better than letting the Muslim Brotherhood get another country for their restored Caliphate plan).
Only the British ever really managed to contain it with their moto of: 'Don't fight or we will kill you'. Remove the "evil" dictator who is supressing the groups and you soon find yourself with out of control groups willing to spend the next 1000 years fighting each other of patches of sand.
Think about why this is. Look at the Qur'an and hadiths. Mohammed had Muslims not under his direct control killed (burned them alive in the unauthorized mosque they built without his permission, he discovered it when they asked him to come and bless it). This set the example for all Muslims that sectarian warfare is not only ok, it is mandatory to fight against other apostates, which are other Muslims. That's why when people say if Islam ruled the world there would be peace. That is false, besides the violent jihad against non-Muslims, and the severe oppression of Muslims, there would also be endless sectarian warfare. This shows up in the bloody statistics of Muslims killed every day by Muslims of another sect and in the fighting of Sunni vs Shia in Syria:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Most of the West never knows or cares about the colossal amount of violence that wracks all of the Muslim World. It is the political ideology of *Islam* that is driving this constant violence. Islam is not a religion of peace as the ignorant or taqiyya-practicing liars tell you. Islam is an evil totalitarian ideology of oppression, exploitation and violence. It is against all the human rights we hold dear. Don't let the liars fool you. Oppose Islamicization of the West.