Cyprus-Forum.com

by **Tim Drayton** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:53 pm

Russia has conducted its first airstrike in Syria, near the city of Homs, a senior U.S. official told CNN on Wednesday . ...

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/30/polit ... ikes-isis/

by **Tim Drayton** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:58 pm

It seems the target was an area held by Daesh north of Homs, but will they only be targeting Daesh?

by **Sotos** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:18 pm

There is nobody in Syria (with significant support) that is better from Assad. All others are as bad or even worst. The Americans have screwed up Iraq, Libya and Syria just for their own selfish interests and then they launched propaganda against the former leaders of those countries just to explain their actions. How is Assad worst than the King of Saudi Arabia, who is America's best friend? What they should do is not to try to change a regime when there is nothing better as an alternative. The UN should put pressure on the leaderships of those monarchies to force them to implement democratic reforms and respect human rights... and then gradually change to a democratic system when the people will be educated about how democracy works.

by **Tim Drayton** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:20 pm

Russian defence officials say the strikes targeted the Islamic State group, but an unnamed US official told Reuters that so far they did not appear to be targeting IS-held territory.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34399164

by **Tim Drayton** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:31 pm

So, who else could Russian jets be targeting? Ruth Sherlock writes:

Russia may have targeted Jaysh al-Fatah as they are the rebel group that poses the greatest threat to Latakia, the regime's heartland and location of the Russian controlled port of Tartous.

Some background on who this group are: Jaysh al-Fateh - the Army of Conquest - is a broad alliance of hardline Islamist groups, which includes both Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham.

In March this group captured Idlib, making it the second provincial capital to fall to the opposition since the start of the war.

Since then they have been effective in fighting the regime in Idlib and it looks like they may be able to push on government strongholds in central Syria and Latakia.

One interesting note - the Russians appear to have been watching this group for a long time: A year ago much of the Ahrar al-Sham leadership was wiped out by an explosion that took place where all the commanders had gathered.

A Syrian businessman who has close connections with the government in Damascus told me yesterday that this was the regime's doing, and came from a tip by Russian intelligence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -live.html

by **Tim Drayton** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:39 pm

For as long as there have been tyrants, every now and again the people rise up and try to overthrow them. Some revolutions succeed and some fail. Some revolutions usher in something better, others don't. It's a basic historical pattern and you can't alter it. Over the very long march of history, a more progressive order has prevailed, and I believe the same mega trend will continue.

by **supporttheunderdog** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:13 pm

Tim Drayton wrote:For as long as there have been tyrants, every now and again the people rise up and try to overthrow them. Some revolutions succeed and some fail. Some revolutions usher in something better, others don't. It's a basic historical pattern and you can't alter it. Over the very long march of history, a more progressive order has prevailed, and I believe the same mega trend will continue.

in partial support of Sotos I was not convinced by the Rhetoric of Blair and Bush about the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Personally I think they should have done the job of deposing Saddam Insane in 1990/91 and a large measure of the current instability in the region must be attributable to that act of that pair of reckless glory seeking adventurers in 2003: I am also somewhat skeptical of the Rhetoric that was used against Assad of Syria and certainly of the methods to remove him. I quite agree they are/were evil tyrants but trying to push them out without thinking through the consequences and leaving something of a power vacuum is not the way, as that way there is anarchy. Libya is a case in point.
Still, someone has sown the wind and now they must reap the whirlwind.

by **Tim Drayton** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:27 pm

supporttheunderdog wrote:
Tim Drayton wrote:For as long as there have been tyrants, every now and again the people rise up and try to overthrow them. Some revolutions succeed and some fail. Some revolutions usher in something better, others don't. It's a basic historical pattern and you can't alter it. Over the very long march of history, a more progressive order has prevailed, and I believe the same mega trend will continue.

in partial support of Sotos I was not convinced by the Rhetoric of Blair and Bush about the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Personally I think they should have done the job of deposing Saddam Insane in 1990/91 and a large measure of the current instability in the region must be attributable to that act of that pair of reckless glory seeking adventurers in 2003: I am also somewhat skeptical of the Rhetoric that was used against Assad of Syria and certainly of the methods to remove him. I quite agree they are/were evil tyrants but trying to push them out without thinking through the consequences and leaving something of a power vacuum is not the way, as that way there is anarchy. Libya is a case in point.
Still, someone has sown the wind and now they must reap the whirlwind.

Blair and Bush in 2003 was nothing to do with a popular revolution against a tyrant; it was an imperialist intervention. The Arab Spring was a genuine revolutionary movement and the Western powers, in support of their own interests and agendas, decided to support it. These are two very different issues. I am not viewing things from the simple minded propaganda that tells us countries are being invaded with the noble aim of supporting democracy. The momentum may, for the time being, end in defeat in Syria, as did the 1848 revolutions in Europe. However, given that there are no absolutist monarchies in power anywhere in Europe and the existence phenomena like the European Convention on Human rights suggests that the aspirations of the European people in 1848 did not die, but lived on to succeed. I believe that the aspirations that were voiced in Tahrir Square will similarly live on and may well eventually vanquish. There is no simple determinist formula that says they necessarily will. History moves dialectically (i.e. there are downs as well as ups) and the main trend makes itself felt over centuries not a couple of years. That is the way I believe history works.