Russia contributing to potential Syria civil war … The US Secretary of State says Russian policy will contribute to a potential civil war in Syria. Hillary Clinton's comments came after Russia and China renewed opposition to tougher UN Security Council action. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has repeated a warning that Syria could be moving towards "catastrophic" civil war, in the wake of the Houla massacre. Rebel commanders are meanwhile split on whether abandon a ceasefire if Syrian forces do not withdraw to barracks. The FSA's Colonel Qassim Saadeddine in Homs said that if there was no government response by Friday lunchtime the FSA would consider itself "no longer bound" by the plan. But the FSA head, General Riyad Asaad, later denied the deadline existed. – BBC
Dominant Social Theme: This is a terrible tragedy in the making.
Free-Market Analysis: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made the point (see above) that the conflict in Syria could lead to civil war. But, in fact, the "conflict" is likely American-made and has all the hallmarks of a previous venture in Libya that saw the end of Muammar Gaddafi's rule.
Thus, the claim that Russia is advancing the prospect of civil war is disingenuous to say the least. Syria is next on the chopping block for the power elite that is pursuing what we call an Islamic Crescent in the Middle East and environs.
The idea apparently is to expand the "war on terror" that has many dubious and even outright phony aspects to it. Promoting Islamic governance, which is the ultimate upshot of all this destabilization, expand the so-called Muslim threat and add credibility to the "terrorist" narrative.
Clinton, in her speech, adds to this narrative. It is all part of an elaborate dominant social theme, a fear-based promotion of militarization that is at least partially aimed at depriving Western middle classes of yet more civil freedoms. The idea, eventually, is to install global governance. Here's some more from the article:
Hillary Clinton's comments came after Russia and China renewed opposition to tougher UN Security Council action. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has repeated a warning that Syria could be moving towards "catastrophic" civil war, in the wake of the Houla massacre.
Rebel commanders are meanwhile split on whether abandon a ceasefire if Syrian forces do not withdraw to barracks. The FSA's Colonel Qassim Saadeddine in Homs said that if there was no government response by Friday lunchtime the FSA would consider itself "no longer bound" by the plan.
But the FSA head, General Riyad Asaad, later denied the deadline existed.
The BBC's Middle Eastern correspondent, Paul Woods, just visited Syria and in a recent report he claimed that the FSA (Free Syrian Army) that has been providing resistance to the Assad regime is "under enormous pressure."
According to Woods, the FSA is nearly out of ammunition and is only receiving a trickle of defections. He believes a civil war is more likely to pit village against village than the FSA against Assad. Presumably, such a civil war would pit Sunni against Shia Muslims, along with other sorts of violence.
What Woods is not reporting, however, is that the same forces are at work in Syria that were at work in Libya. Already the United Nations has apparently been caught ferrying in troops that fought in Libya. There are videos on YouTube attesting to this, or at least there were.
The United Nations has been involved in more ways than one in the larger destabilization that has been inflicted lately on Africa and the Middle East. It began with the abrogation of the Peace of Westphalia in 2005.
The term refers to the outcome of several peace treaties signed in 1648 that put an end to the Thirty Years' War that had ravaged the Holy Roman Empire (1618–1648) and then, later, the Eighty Years' War (1568–1648) between Spain and the Netherlands.
The treaties, negotiated in Central Europe (Osnabrück and Münster) ushered in the idea of a sovereign state and the idea that the boundaries of such a state were invioable. Unfortunately, the Treaty actually came to an end when the UN approved R2P, the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine.
This is based on the idea that states have a primary role to play in shielding their populations from genocide. If the state abdicates this role, the "international community" should provide additional resources from mediation to political structures to outright invasion.
Sovereignty is a dead letter in this brave new world. The UN itself and its member states now police each other's sociopolitical activities with the idea that an invasion, when decided upon, provides the ultimate deterrent.
In reality, since an Anglo-America power elite generally runs the UN, R2P gives the West enormous, worldwide powers. Any nation-state that does not obey the Anglosphere's dictates can now find itself on the wrong side of a massed international "coalition of the willing" led by NATO and fulfilling the strategic desires of the City of London, Washington, DC and perhaps even Tel Aviv.
The arrogance of the power elite is on full display in these efforts at destabilization. Not only have these efforts borne fruit in Egypt and Tunisia as of this writing, the assumption seems to be that any state is subject to the same treatment.
Of course, Syria is not Libya and Russian and China's back gives the Syria government a considerable advantage. Time will tell whether the elites have over-reached once again; but presumably Western elites don't care that much so long as maximum chaos is introduced throughout the world, giving the power elite further justification to continue its domestic crackdowns.
Through a variety of means, the West is building up opposition to Assad within Syria. Russia and China are Syria's best allies in this regard, but given the destabilization that the powers-that-be have inflicted on Africa recently, their opposition may eventually be muted. If so, Ms. Clinton's prediction of a civil war may come to be seen as prophecy rather than speculation.