[Aj12]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18313129
Assad denies any role in the Houla massacre, blames terrorists backed by foreign governments for the violence in Syria

[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by Aj12)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18313129
Assad denies any role in the Houla massacre, blames terrorists backed by foreign governments for the violence in Syria

It's funny how in denial he is, in that speech he was talking about 'political reforms' as if this is an option anymore.

[Aj12]

(Original post by Brutal Honesty)
It's funny how in denial he is, in that speech he was talking about 'political reforms' as if this is an option anymore.

He keeps saying how he wants a dialogue, that always makes me laugh. He tries to claim he won't do it with those that use violence, well then he should have started it months ago when these protests were peaceful.

[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by Aj12)
He keeps saying how he wants a dialogue, that always makes me laugh. He tries to claim he won't do it with those that use violence, well then he should have started it months ago when these protests were peaceful.

The SNC should say they aren't going to negotiate with those who use violence either, specifically the Assad dynasty.

[Aj12]

(Original post by Brutal Honesty)
The SNC should say they aren't going to negotiate with those who use violence either, specifically the Assad dynasty.

So what would be your ideal solution for the situation in Syria?

[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by Aj12)
So what would be your ideal solution for the situation in Syria?

The creation of a safe passage, most likely via Turkey although if this starts destabilising Lebanon (already showing signs of this) then they may offer assistance here. It would be better if it occurred via Lebanon because they are in the west and this is where most of the protests are, places like Aleppo which are nearer Turkey are more calm. In any case, Turkey (maybe NATO) will play a role here implementing the no-fly zone over the safe passage as they are the strongest country here militarily. Once safe passages are created in areas which are at risk of being assieged we can begin to draw in supply lines from Lebanon/Turkey (maybe Jordan too if they co-operate) and begin creating a stable opposition zone akin to Benghazi which will treat the wounded and provide humanitarian assistance. Then we push on from there: Qatar, Saudi, Turkey et al. will begin arming/training rebels in these zones and aim to reach Damascus.

It's worth remembering the reason Assad has reacted with such violence in places like Houla, Al Qusayr, Idlib and Hama is because it's quite close to Damascus in Western Syria and near to Lebanon. In fact, if you look at Syria on a map, you could draw a straight line from the north of Lebanon all the way to the Turkish border and see that this is where most of the violence has occurred. This is where the safe passage would be most effective, a straight line linking Lebanon to Turkey via Qaa (in Lebanon) to Al Qusayr, Homs, Hama, Idlib and Reyhanli (in Turkey). You can see roughly what it'd look like here. Rebels have recently killed 80 soldiers in Damascus and Idlib which shows they're capable of inflicting damage on Assad's regime even in the capital. The Ba'athist party are very good at remaining in power by playing on sectarian fears and Al Qaeda and will probably carry out a few dummy suicide bombings which will coincidentally kill no-one important but it'll be enough to scare some minorities. Many minorities have joined the revolution however, and have rejected any sectarian fears including Assad's own Alawite sect which is interesting considering they are a small minority and are comparatively well treated, i.e. they have the most to potentially lose.

I think the recent Houla massacre has changed the game for a lot of Syrians who were previously not considering violent action, now we'll see far more direct attacks against the regime's forces and more defections. Once this reaches critical mass it'll be the beginning of the end for Assad. As things currently are however, it'll be a very long and bloody road ahead.

[Aj12]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18334377

Top al Qaeda commander killed by drone strike

[MxSK]

Google starts warning affected users about state-sponsored cyber attacks

http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/g...cyber-attacks/



lol, thought this was funny for some reason. imagine receiving that warning.


You know although the article talks about US-sponsored Flame and Stuxnet, I think google would be more worried about Iran's attempt at stealing iranian gmail passwords (e.g the infamous stolen SSL certificates from denmark which were used for MITM attacks, I think something like 400,000 accounts were potentially compromised), and similarly chinas attempts on google also. Those seem more google's court than certainly stuxnet (which targets siemens control systems), and maybe even flame (which exploits windows more than online security).

Forgot to post about this earlier, but any thoughts on the Obama administration leaking info about the top secret "Olympic Games" cyber-program against iran to David Sanger of the nytimes a few days ago? Where they essentially confessed to stuxnet, but it also suggests that theres much more going on than we can even imagine. E.g with the details of Flame last week, it now appears that this was an OLD attack (like 2009) thats only been discovered now.

Obviously they leaked it for reasons relating to the presidential elections, but theres been lots of op-eds about the consequences of legitimising cyber-warfare.

[Brutal Honesty]

Views of Syrian opposition (confirms they are the most pro-western opposition movement emerging from the Arab Spring):

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/p...sition-believe

[Aj12]

Somalia Islamists offer a 10 camel bounty for Obama
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/09/wo...ies/index.html

[Lord Hysteria]

(Original post by Brutal Honesty)
It's funny how in denial he is, in that speech he was talking about 'political reforms' as if this is an option anymore.

I don't think he is in denial at all. I think he is shred, calculating and ruthless. I felt that there two lessons to be learnt here: Egypt's Mubarak and Iran's Ayatollah. One is sentenced to life in prison and the other recently reinvigorated calls to destroy Israel.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

[MxSK]

(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
I felt that there two lessons to be learnt here: Egypt's Mubarak and Iran's Ayatollah. One is sentenced to life in prison and the other recently reinvigorated calls to destroy Israel.

not sure i understand what the lesson is, care to explain?

[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
I don't think he is in denial at all. I think he is shred, calculating and ruthless. I felt that there two lessons to be learnt here: Egypt's Mubarak and Iran's Ayatollah. One is sentenced to life in prison and the other recently reinvigorated calls to destroy Israel.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

I'd use Gaddafi and Putin as better examples. Or even Bashar's father Hafez and the Hama massacre.

[MxSK]

Curious announcement from Iran:
Report: Iran begins designing nuclear submarine

TEHRAN , Iran (AP) — A semiofficial Iranian news agency is reporting that the country has begun to design its first nuclear submarine.
The Tuesday report by Fars quotes the deputy navy chief in charge of technical affairs, Admiral Abbas Zamini, as saying Iran has begun "initial stages" of designing the nuclear-powered craft.
Adm. Zamini says Iran has developed "peaceful nuclear technology" and has both the capability and the right to build a submarine.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...da83a39d4b138c

First I thought yeah right, i'll believe it when i see it but then i saw Karim Sadjadpour (think-tanker) make this comment on twitter:

Karim Sadjadpour ‏@ksadjadpour
#Iran says its designing nuclear submarines--one of the v few pretexts for weapon-grade uranium...aside from a bomb

So a quick google brought this up:

Russian nuclear submarine reactors appear to use slightly less uranium fuel: Russia: Naval Reactor Technology:
Out of the estimated 468 naval reactors that have been installed on 258 submarines and service ships, 24 use fuel enriched to 90% U-235. Most of the reactors were fueled with U-235 enriched to 21-45%. A typical reactor core contains 315 kg of uranium.
We can surmise that newer naval reactors require less fuel if it has been enriched to 90% Uranium-235.

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogapr08/quiz4-12-08.html

Interesting... Ok Iran isn't anywhere near being able to do this i would throw out an (uninformed) guess of at least 5 years-10 years if not more and thats if they can get past the immense technological hurdle. But it indicates that if the "nuclear submarine" announcement isn't bull****, it could possibly just to raise the stakes as part of the negotiations going on now, but if it isn't bull**** then it suggests clearly that there ar plans for 21-45% uranium if not 90%.

None of the news reports have made any comment on this aspect of the announcement, which is weird because you'd think with the sensationalists that most news outlets are these days that they would eat something like this up.

[Lord Hysteria]

(Original post by MxSK)
not sure i understand what the lesson is, care to explain?

A dictator should not make any compromises. Therein lies the fault line

[MxSK]

(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
A dictator should not make any compromises. Therein lies the fault line

oh lesson for the dictator? yeah, Khamenei has believed that since 1989 and publicly states so in speeches frequently.

Having taken part in a revolution himself, he believes the turning point was when the Shah backed off in 79. But another (maybe more correct) interpretation is that the turning point was actually in 1975 when the Shah SHOULD have compromised and maybe Iran would be a constitutional monarchy today, because at that point, all people were asking for was the opening up of the political system.

But i guess we're way past the point where Assad could have compromised...

[Democracy]

(Original post by MxSK)
oh lesson for the dictator? yeah, Khamenei has believed that since 1989 and publicly states so in speeches frequently.

Having taken part in a revolution himself, he believes the turning point was when the Shah backed off in 79. But another (maybe more correct) interpretation is that the turning point was actually in 1975 when the Shah SHOULD have compromised and maybe Iran would be a constitutional monarchy today, because at that point, all people were asking for was the opening up of the political system.

But i guess we're way past the point where Assad could have compromised...

Really the mother of all turning points, way before the above and the 15 Khordad '42 movement, etc. It was in fact the 28 Mordad coup against Dr Mossadegh. It was truly in that moment, and two years running up to it, which the Shah lost all credibility in the eyes of the people. Everything after that was just him living on borrowed time really. By 1975 the Shah had already been through 15 Khordad, Siahkal, the Mojahedin had formed etc. The Shah's window for forming a constitutional monarchy was actually during the early 1950s when Dr Mossadegh had told him to "reign, not govern". But even if he had, since the entire quarrel was over oil, the Brits and Americans would have just removed the Shah too. To a certain extent, these things are all a little out of the hands of individuals, especially when colonial powers are involved.

Similarly, it would be incorrect to say that the turning point in the - eventual - downfall of the Islamic Republic was the events of 22 Khordad '88 (as Ata'ollah Mohajerani suggested) things started going south way before then. The Islamic Republic is living on borrowed time too, simply delaying the inevitable.

That's my way of looking at things anyway.

[MxSK]

(Original post by Democracy)
Really the mother of all turning points, way before the above and the 15 Khordad '42 movement, etc. It was in fact the 28 Mordad coup against Dr Mossadegh. It was truly in that moment, and two years running up to it, which the Shah lost all credibility in the eyes of the people. Everything after that was just him living on borrowed time really. By 1975 the Shah had already been through 15 Khordad, Siahkal, the Mojahedin had formed etc. The Shah's window for forming a constitutional monarchy was actually during the early 1950s when Dr Mossadegh had told him to "reign, not govern". But even if he had, since the entire quarrel was over oil, the Brits and Americans would have just removed the Shah too. To a certain extent, these things are all a little out of the hands of individuals, especially when colonial powers are involved.

Similarly, it would be incorrect to say that the turning point in the - eventual - downfall of the Islamic Republic was the events of 22 Khordad '88 (as Ata'ollah Mohajerani suggested) things started going south way before then. The Islamic Republic is living on borrowed time too, simply delaying the inevitable.

That's my way of looking at things anyway.

Yeah you're right, "turning point" was way too strong of a phrase. But there were mistakes and decisions all the way that didn't help or made things worse.

On 22 Khordad: on the other hand, from that point was when you would hear people say "islamic republic is finished", i think mainly because of the overwhelming public expression. People were genuinely surprised at the turnouts.

[Democracy]

(Original post by MxSK)
Yeah you're right, "turning point" was way too strong of a phrase. But there were mistakes and decisions all the way that didn't help or made things worse.

On 22 Khordad: on the other hand, from that point was when you would hear people say "islamic republic is finished"...

Well in my mind, the Islamic Republic (or any other regime) is only finished when it's finished. But to talk about when the beginning of the end was, well, I'd say those ********s lost the support of women when they forced them to cover their hair, they lost the support of most students after 1980/1 and the cultural revolution, and the majority of the population during the war, especially after the 1982 prolongment and escalation of the conflict. Everything after that has been them living on borrowed time, simply staying in power due to brutality.

[MxSK]

Reuters picked up on the point i was making earlier on enrichment and nuclear submarines, quoting mark hibbs:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85B17Q20120612