5 ms·

Audio Reveals What John Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors

27 points by livatlantis 10y ago

arbuge 10y ago
Which incidentally also goes to prove that most doors are not really closed these days...
Noseshine 10y ago
So while I understand the Syrian's frustration, let's assume the US does the most extreme thing to help them and goes to all-out war to remove Assad. They would probably be able to do that even against the will of the Russians, since those would hardly fight American forces, if we ignore the increased verbal threats that would surely come. So let's assume the US is victorious and Assad gone. And now? A lot of Syrian fractions, deprived of their common enemy, and a lot of them are extremists. I'm sure very few of them would be okay with an international occupying force. What I'm missing in all the news is even a hint that the journalists are willing and/or capable of looking at motives. We are always told about this or that attack, and how many children died - never mentioning that if the table were turned it would just be the children of the other group(s) that would die (but the media could just stop reporting about them, the news articles are way too inconsistent in whom they are reporting about and whom not, that alone is a significant selection bias). I have yet to see any article that tells us (in believable terms and not just superficially) what "Assad" (meaning more than just the one guy) actually wants. I only read that he and Putin are bombing hospitals and children. The German leading magazine and news source "Der Spiegel", where I get most of my daily news, is especially bad. They've had 2-4 such Syria articles on the front page every single day for a while now, without giving any actual (deeper) information or a (thorough) look at the alternatives. And then they wonder about the apathy among the readers? They enable the forum only under every 10th or so of those articles, and each time they do the tone is highly skeptical, not of any one party in the conflict, but about how we are informed and the lack of actually clear and good alternatives.
- tormeh 10y ago
  Assad wants power and control over Syria, obviously. The guy has few appealing exile options. Most of the regime's members would face execution if they lost, so they don't want that.
  - meira 10y ago
    > Assad wants power and control over Syria, obviously This is a President's prerrogative. Why is US preventing this to happen?
    - cmurf 10y ago
      Syria's Constitution makes the country a single party system. Assad is a dictator. There's nothing democratic about its government. It's a family dictatorship. The people wanted their ouster, Assad refused to go and lit the stables on fire in a huge fuck you to the whole country.
      - meira 10y ago
        The people elected recently a parlament that supports Assad, which was also elected by vote. I don't see a good reason given for US to go there, fund ISIS and screw half a dozen of countries.
        cmurf 10y ago
        How do people have fair elections in the middle of a war zone with a single political party as the option? The entire opposition boycotted the election. What is your point in even bringing up such a obvious sham of an election? And which half a dozen countries are you talking about exactly, that aren't already screwed? I'm a non-interventionist myself, but it isn't an absolute position. Accepting years long conflict isn't good for anyone either.
        meira 10y ago
tormeh 10y ago
Sad. Seeing Russia determine the outcome of this war is frustrating. Then again it's not the US's responsibility to fix everything.
- pabloski 10y ago
  Fix? They break everything they touch. Seriously, starting with Saddam they have created utter chaos in the ME and helped spread terrorism all over the world. But hey, Eisenhower tried to wake up we (the people) when he talked about the dangers of the military-industrial complex.
  - faebi 10y ago
    Its the USA who started all this chaos in the near east and europe is the one who suffers. Nicely explained by satire show "Die Anstalt" on youtube https://youtu.be/57fMqUl-sng https://youtu.be/57fMqUl-sng (english subtitles)
    - travmatt 10y ago
      I'd argue Europe's brilliant idea to carve up the Middle East into countries intentionally designed to be sectarian is a root cause of today's problems. America took the lid off the problems, but we didn't draw the lines of Syria, Iraq, etc.
  - rando444 10y ago
    Why start with Saddam? Overthrowing Mohammad Mosaddegh started a shitstorm that has been going on ever since. This is probably where Eisenhower learned the dangers of the 'military industrial complex', because the US was actually opposed to intervention in Iran until Eisenhower came to power and changed that position (on the advice of Winston Churchill)
  - abysmallyideal 10y ago
    When it comes to states like the US, a military agreement or alliance doesn't mean the US will "honor it" when their allies are attacked or in need of their assistance. It only means they will consider giving some kind of aid if it suits them.
supersaiyanverx 10y ago
Propaganda. Assad and Russia are closer than ever to crushing the rebels ending this 5 year war. The sob stories (over 100 children!) have been at hysterical levels for the past week, but I can only hope most Americans will not fall for it. What happens in Syria is not our business.
babayega2 10y ago
from the article <Kerry ask : “Who’s that going to be?” he asked. “Who’s going to do that?” “Three years ago, I would say: You. But right now, I don’t know.” > So now oppositions all over the world go ballistic and use violence as the only solution to a problem, confident that USA will come and take out the head of the regime they oppose, ...Americans coming in, die for them. 3 years ago they were betting on Americans invading Syria and do the work for them ? Silly.
littletimmy 10y ago
What a bunch of lies. He talks as if the action against Syria is because Assad is a brutal military dictator. The reality is that the US wants Assad gone because he is an ally to Russia/Iran who can exert control over Lebanon, and he is blocking a gas pipeline from Qatar to EU that would weaken Russia. The simple solution for there to be peace in Syria is for the US to get out. Stop sponsoring terrorists (yes, the "rebels" the US sponsors are terrorists) in Syria, just get out. Assad maintained peace from 2000 - 2011, and he can do it again. The saddest part is this: when a Syrian kid learns of the destruction of his country and wants revenge on the US, it will be these same newspapers that will be crying about "Why do they hate us?"

27 points by livatlantis 10y ago

Which incidentally also goes to prove that most doors are not really closed these days...

So while I understand the Syrian's frustration, let's assume the US does the most extreme thing to help them and goes to all-out war to remove Assad. They would probably be able to do that even against the will of the Russians, since those would hardly fight American forces, if we ignore the increased verbal threats that would surely come. So let's assume the US is victorious and Assad gone. And now? A lot of Syrian fractions, deprived of their common enemy, and a lot of them are extremists. I'm sure very few of them would be okay with an international occupying force. What I'm missing in all the news is even a hint that the journalists are willing and/or capable of looking at motives. We are always told about this or that attack, and how many children died - never mentioning that if the table were turned it would just be the children of the other group(s) that would die (but the media could just stop reporting about them, the news articles are way too inconsistent in whom they are reporting about and whom not, that alone is a significant selection bias). I have yet to see any article that tells us (in believable terms and not just superficially) what "Assad" (meaning more than just the one guy) actually wants. I only read that he and Putin are bombing hospitals and children. The German leading magazine and news source "Der Spiegel", where I get most of my daily news, is especially bad. They've had 2-4 such Syria articles on the front page every single day for a while now, without giving any actual (deeper) information or a (thorough) look at the alternatives. And then they wonder about the apathy among the readers? They enable the forum only under every 10th or so of those articles, and each time they do the tone is highly skeptical, not of any one party in the conflict, but about how we are informed and the lack of actually clear and good alternatives.

tormeh 10y ago
Assad wants power and control over Syria, obviously. The guy has few appealing exile options. Most of the regime's members would face execution if they lost, so they don't want that.
- meira 10y ago
  > Assad wants power and control over Syria, obviously This is a President's prerrogative. Why is US preventing this to happen?
  - cmurf 10y ago
    Syria's Constitution makes the country a single party system. Assad is a dictator. There's nothing democratic about its government. It's a family dictatorship. The people wanted their ouster, Assad refused to go and lit the stables on fire in a huge fuck you to the whole country.
    - meira 10y ago
      The people elected recently a parlament that supports Assad, which was also elected by vote. I don't see a good reason given for US to go there, fund ISIS and screw half a dozen of countries.
      - cmurf 10y ago
        How do people have fair elections in the middle of a war zone with a single political party as the option? The entire opposition boycotted the election. What is your point in even bringing up such a obvious sham of an election? And which half a dozen countries are you talking about exactly, that aren't already screwed? I'm a non-interventionist myself, but it isn't an absolute position. Accepting years long conflict isn't good for anyone either.
        meira 10y ago

tormeh 10y ago

Sad. Seeing Russia determine the outcome of this war is frustrating. Then again it's not the US's responsibility to fix everything.

pabloski 10y ago
Fix? They break everything they touch. Seriously, starting with Saddam they have created utter chaos in the ME and helped spread terrorism all over the world. But hey, Eisenhower tried to wake up we (the people) when he talked about the dangers of the military-industrial complex.
- faebi 10y ago
  Its the USA who started all this chaos in the near east and europe is the one who suffers. Nicely explained by satire show "Die Anstalt" on youtube https://youtu.be/57fMqUl-sng https://youtu.be/57fMqUl-sng (english subtitles)
  - travmatt 10y ago
    I'd argue Europe's brilliant idea to carve up the Middle East into countries intentionally designed to be sectarian is a root cause of today's problems. America took the lid off the problems, but we didn't draw the lines of Syria, Iraq, etc.
- rando444 10y ago
  Why start with Saddam? Overthrowing Mohammad Mosaddegh started a shitstorm that has been going on ever since. This is probably where Eisenhower learned the dangers of the 'military industrial complex', because the US was actually opposed to intervention in Iran until Eisenhower came to power and changed that position (on the advice of Winston Churchill)
- abysmallyideal 10y ago
  When it comes to states like the US, a military agreement or alliance doesn't mean the US will "honor it" when their allies are attacked or in need of their assistance. It only means they will consider giving some kind of aid if it suits them.

supersaiyanverx 10y ago

Propaganda. Assad and Russia are closer than ever to crushing the rebels ending this 5 year war. The sob stories (over 100 children!) have been at hysterical levels for the past week, but I can only hope most Americans will not fall for it. What happens in Syria is not our business.

babayega2 10y ago

from the article <Kerry ask : “Who’s that going to be?” he asked. “Who’s going to do that?” “Three years ago, I would say: You. But right now, I don’t know.” > So now oppositions all over the world go ballistic and use violence as the only solution to a problem, confident that USA will come and take out the head of the regime they oppose, ...Americans coming in, die for them. 3 years ago they were betting on Americans invading Syria and do the work for them ? Silly.

littletimmy 10y ago

What a bunch of lies. He talks as if the action against Syria is because Assad is a brutal military dictator. The reality is that the US wants Assad gone because he is an ally to Russia/Iran who can exert control over Lebanon, and he is blocking a gas pipeline from Qatar to EU that would weaken Russia. The simple solution for there to be peace in Syria is for the US to get out. Stop sponsoring terrorists (yes, the "rebels" the US sponsors are terrorists) in Syria, just get out. Assad maintained peace from 2000 - 2011, and he can do it again. The saddest part is this: when a Syrian kid learns of the destruction of his country and wants revenge on the US, it will be these same newspapers that will be crying about "Why do they hate us?"