Cogitating

Syria, a land mostly ignored and up till now stable under its Assad dictatorship.
Suddenly it is rent in two by rebels, why?
The Assad regime forced a secular dictatorship on the land, this found much support among the Shia and indeed those who call themselves Christian.  While it ruthlessly suppressed any opposition in the Middle Eastern style it also allowed a great degree of controlled freedom.  People were educated, including women, and as long as you obeyed you survived.  Israel was however not keen, the border too close, previous wars left their mark and support for Hezbollah in Lebanon irked the Israeli's a wee bit.
The great powers did nothing.  Indeed deals were done which included Syria, did Assad not interrogate Islamist for the Bush regime in the US?  Now however somebody wishes to destabilise
Iran's nuclear threat and Syria is the place to do it.


A simple technique is used.  Sunni Saudi Arabia, who fear the Iran threat, and oil rich Sunni Qatar, are used to supply material to unsettle Assad.  They supply the money, the arms and other help to these 'rebels.'   Using Turkey, a key member of NATO, to supply weapons and protect the 'innocent civilians' along their border with Syria also threatens Assad.  This settled almost peaceful nation now has an army bent on slaughtering anyone who opposes the regime, uncontrolled militant groups on both sides happily killing young and old, and a 'rebel' force, now said to possess heavy weaponry, who are a mixed bunch with policies of a wide and varied kind. Nobody really knows what many of these people really look for.


Yet the west is happily encouraging this to worry Iran.  The danger is clear.  Russia and China may well take Iran's side, for whatever reason, and a new cold war, which will soon turn hot, is almost upon us.  Let us realise also that the divisions within Iran also show that nobody knows what their long term idea actually is!  Unsettling a peaceful dictatorship in Syria to attack Iran may be a clever plan to some but the results may well be catastrophic for us all.

Following on from 'friends' yesterday I got to thinking about how some folks collect 'friends' on social media sites.  In my humble opinion, and humble is the word, we only ever have two or three really close friends.  People who stick with you whatever your faults, and this because they like you.  We may also have a larger collection of a dozen or more 'friends,' possibly up to fifty or so if we belong to clubs or groups, who we regard as friends but are not going to be there forever.  We may also have a further larger group we know from such groups, work or whatever who we regard as acquaintances.  So I ask how do some folks have two or three thousand 'friends' on the 'facebook' or 'Twitter' accounts?   Are these real 'friends?'  Possibly we need another word for this?  Now famous people get followers, important folks, footballers, journalists etc, get similar followers who know and respect them, but these are not real 'friends.'  So why do folks gather hundreds of people they never will know and add them to their list?  maybe it's just me being jealous?  A handful of good people is better than hundreds you do not even have time to read or understand surely?

.