Israel has an interest and input on USA policy on matters pertaining to a civil war on its borders? Who knew.
It’s also possible, given the complex nature of what’s happening in Syria, what makes sense one week does not the next. Also, that ‘Israel’ is not a single voice of one view.
From a different pov, Israel will have a great interest in the direction of ther civil war itself - a medium/long term issue, but right now it’s more concerned with where the CW are being stored, who’s in control of each location and what’s happening there. On a minute-by-minute basis.
It will be relying on US satellites for much of that.
IMHO, what Israel (or at least, the current Israeli leadership) wants is an Israeli-style response - a couple of carefully-targeted airstrikes or missile, and that’s it. No extended campaign, no boots on the ground, no regime change. Just enough damage that they know you’re serious.
Nowhere in the article did it state otherwise, but then, so what, ay?
Anyhow, a general point, it is detrimental to discussion to misinterpret your ‘opponents’ remarks so that you can score a bogus point. What is the point?
But the article does raise the issue of Islamic banking, which is apparently without interest, a more-or-less remarkable concept I think. Anyhow, a slight bit of research did produce this link on Islamic banking in Syria
I had to laugh at the idea of people on a site dedicating to "fighting ignorance giving credence to a truther website that spins anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
I was also a bit surprised to see Allen Grayson described as “a Zionist Congressman” since I don’t remember him ever being a particularly fervent supporter of Israel. AFAIK he’s no more a Zionist than most American Jews.
It’s also worth noting that Gack’s “source” for his claim about the Mossad being behind the articles relies on Pepe Escobar, the genius journalist we may remember who claimed, without any credible evidence that 70% of all Syrians supported the regime while just 10% supported the rebels.
As was pointed out, if that were true the rebels would have been crushed mints ago.
Escobar is either a fool, a liar, or completely unconcerned with the truth.
In short he’s hardly a serious journalist and hardly a credible source.
Did you not read the quote I cited? It’s from the article.
Here it is again:
The emphasis is of course added.
The article you posted above notes that Syria has passed laws allowing for Islamic banking. That is a very different thing from caliming, as your previous cite did, that Syria is an “Islamic country” where ““usury” – charging rent for the “use” of money – is viewed as a sin, if not a crime” thus putting Syria “… at odds with the Western model of rent extraction”.
The “point” of your article, insofar as I could ascetain it, is summarized in this further quote:
Again, emphasis added.
In short (and please correct me if I am mistaking anything here) the thesis is as follows:
To “make the world safe for bankers”, certain “rogue” states had to be suppressed by the US military.
Those “rogue” states include Syria (the current subject of the day, and this thread).
It is a “rogue state” because, as an “Islamic country”, it does not allow “usury”, which is “forbidden by Islamic teaching”.
This is all very amusing, but the thesis is an utter failure if, in point of fact, Syria does allow “usury”, because it is not an Islamic theocracy - right? How then can attacking Syria “… make the world safe for usury”?
Contrary to your claim this is a “bogus point”, it’s at the very heart of your article. A Syria that allows banking with “usury” isn’t one that would, even assuming your article’s position is 100% accurate, be targeted by vengeful bankers, because such a Syria isn’t any threat to “usury”.
Syria is an Islamic country and Islamic people regard interest as a sin. Syria’s national banks are Islamic banks and do not charge interest. Hence they are targets of the global financial oligarchy. Syria has in recent years allowed six private banks to operate and charge interest, but this does not invalidate the points above. Capiche?
Syria’s government is not an “Islamic government”. Syria is only an “Islamic country” insofar as the majority of its citizens are Muslim. However, it’s actual government is run by a faction of Alawites, a religious minority who are regarded as heritics or worse by the type of hardcore Islamoids who are likely to be fussed by the “sinfulness” of interest.
The government runs under the ageis of the Ba’ath party, which is “arab socialist”, not “Islamic” - for the obvious reason that an “Islamic” government would pit the minority of Alawites against the majority of non-Alawites. This religious issue (as you may, or may not, know) plays a significant role in the current struggle …
The Syrian banking system was, until recently a socialist one - in that all banks were government-controlled - not an Islamic one, and it most certainly allowed interest - it loaned money and paid interest on deposits (albeit, interest paid was kept artificially low, leading to low levels of deposits). This is what one would expect from a Ba’athist government.
If you have a source (other than your article) which actually states that Syria’s banks do not use interest because of “Islam”, I’d love to see it. The ones I have seen state the opposite. For example:
You are illustrating my point for the 3rd time, no one has said that Syria does have an Islamic government.
Link given in previous response, you have to read it …
“In terms of corporate/project finance, Islamic banks provide credit facilities on non-interest basis for various terms in all economic sectors and activities that are in compliance with shariah principles using the various acceptable contracts and methods approved by the Shariah Supervisory Council.”
Too bad you didn’t read on a few more sentences. 'm not claiming that you said Syria has an Islamic government. What you said is:
I’m pointing out that Syria’s banks were (until recently) nationalized banks - that is, run by the government - and that Syria, whose government is not “Islamic”, does in fact allow its national banks to both charge and pay interest, regardless of what some of its population may feel about the matter.
If you have any contrary evidence, let’s see it.
This doesn’t count:
Your previous link was about Syria allowing private Islamic banks - part of its overall banking reform (which includedallowing private, interest-paying banks). It is emphatically not about how Syria’s nationalized, central banking system is run along “Islamic” lines.
Again, please provide actual evidence that Syria’s central, government banks are run along “Islamic” lines, and do not charge or pay interest.
Or is the thesis that merely allowing some private “sharia” banks has brought down the wrath of the banking cabal? If so, why are they not invading … the US? The US has lots of “sharia banks”, too.
Hmmm, you could be right. I’m trying to find out if the Central Bank of Syria is an Islamic bank or not, haven’t found out yet. In any case there are Islamic banks in Syria.
Well, I had to go back to the original article to see what it says … and again you are countering an argument that was never made … from the article…
“The “end-game” would require not just coercing support among WTO members but taking down those countries refusing to join. Some key countries remained holdouts from the WTO, including Iraq, Libya, Iran and Syria.”
I thought you had me, but … you lose again.
I did learn something about Islamic banking though, so thanks.
You keep on with that. You are sure to be convincing eventually!
It takes some very selective reading of your article to claim “victory”.
Why not continue your quote? The complete quote, without your “selective editing”, states as follows:
Not a hint in the article that, as we now have established as facts: (1) Syria has in fact opened its banking up to private banks, some few “islamic” but most not; and (2) Syrian public banks are in no way “Islamic” and in fact charge interest and pay interest.
The author’s whole point was that, of all the “holdouts”, it was these particular ones that attracted the ire of the bankers - because of their Islamic banking.
To quote:
The author doesn’t know shit about Syrian banking and makes obvious errors that even a non-specialist knows right away are howlers - like that usury is forbidden in Syria.
I know by now you are impervious to such tiny matters as “facts”, but hey, keep saying black is white and you can “win” any debate.
Man, you are killin me ! This is a debater’s debate for sure, a semantic debate, something like that … anyhow central point of the article is that the countries not joining the WTO have to be taken down and she lists them by name, including Syria.
Then, elsewhere she says that in rogue Islamic nations, which she doesn’t list by name, usury is forbidden by Islamic teaching. First the nations are not named, and she doesn’t say that usury is forbidden by law but by Islamic teaching. Which it is.
Wait a minute, I want to waffle on that point. You’re partially right there, what she says is literally true but … one could infer …
So, this is my position, and I’m sticking with it … you have not touched on the central point of the article, and you are wrong in saying that she wrote that usury is illegal in Syria.
Well the website Gack linked to maintains that the US had advance notice of the 911 attacks. Linking to an article with a POV like that without pulling out their specific claims is crackpot stuff. Anyway, they argue the following:
[QUOTE=GlobalResearch Crackpot Website]
I think what’s apparent here is that Mossad used a device that is quite common when governments/intelligence agencies want to plant a phoney story; release it through a relatively unknown publication and wait for it to be picked up by the MSM.
[/QUOTE]
De Speigel is hardly an unknown publication. And the article they refer to is in Focus Magazine, the 3rd largest newsweekly in Germany. So I think we can laugh this claim off.
Comedy gold.
Look I insist that there’s a serious question embedded in the OP. But it’s having difficulty emerging from all the kookiness.
[hijack]I’m not sure, but I think I can draw a bright line between GlobalResearchCrackpot and Counterpunch. For one thing the latter doesn’t rely so heavily on the contributions of one author and his research shop. That said CP is an opinion website (one I don’t frequent) so using them as an authority makes somewhat less sense than treating a random Huffpo contributor as an expert. You really need to summarize and convey the arguments of problematic sources and not just post a link. [/hijack]
I think we agree on the facts, the ‘debate’ is a semantic thing.
But, let’s step back for a second. We know that Syria was targeted from the 1996 paper 'A Clean Break … " as per wiki …
"The report explained a new approach to solving Israel’s security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on “Western values”. It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting their possession of “weapons of mass destruction”
Targeting Syria was confirmed by Wesley Clark in 2002(?), see it here …
Syria has been a target for 15 years.
So, Ellen Brown thinks Syria was targeted because it didn’t join the WTO. That’s just one more reason, but it ain’t ‘the’ reason.
Trying to counter an argument by saying that it came from a ‘truther’ or whatever web site is one step removed from ad hominem attack. The Delphic Oracle no longer exists, and we must get our information from imperfect sources and judge it as best we can. You have to weigh conflicting information yourself, if you can’t, you can’t think. And, you can’t pass off the responsibility of weighting conflicting info, you have to do it yourself. I’d guess most people have no inclination to make the effort.
From the Max Blumenthal article on Grayson
“But when it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict, Grayson is fully programmed by AIPAC and the pro-war, pro-settlements wing of the Israel Lobby.”
The problem here is that the theory suffers from a lack of any specificity.
Of course Israel has ‘targeted’ Syria - in the sense that the two states are enemies. They have been ever since Israel was a nation. There are pretty sound reasons, on the Israeli side, for this - Syria has participated in almost every Arab-Israeli war and steadfastly refuses to make peace.
Of course Israel is concerned about Syria gaining WMDs. In fact, Israel bombed Syria’s plant to make nukes.
Does that mean that Israel (or some faction thereof) has a sound motivation, today, to lie to get the US to weaken Assad? Not necessarily. In fact, any such weakening, depending on the form it takes (which, unless you are a believer that Israel runs the US’s war plans - and if so, why bother with this conspiracy of lying? - Israel would have no control over) could very easily lead to a rebel victory.
And what form of victory would that take? No-one knows. Chances are good it would be some sort of Islamicist take-over.
The Israelis do not want anything from Syria, but to be left alone by them. Currently, their best bet for that is Assad. The civil war has weakened him considerably. He’s hanging on by his fingernails. He’s in no position to attack Israel. If he survives this civil war, he’ll be weak for years to come.
Why would Israel conspire to attack, and potentially depose, Assad in favour of an unknown coallition of rebels, that could potentially result in a vigorous and aggressive Islamicist Syria? That’s the real question.
Citing the fact that, as everyone knows, the Israelis don’t like the current government of Syria (in 1996!) does not answer it. Chances are they would like the current alternatives even less.
'm not claiming that you said Syria has an Islamic government. What you said is:
