I think this is one of the better analysis of the situation in Syria that I have yet to see. -សតិវ អតុ

From Voltairenet.Org:

Professor Domenico Losurdo pinpoints several inconsistencies in the Western rhetoric against Syria. They reveal that the problem is not where we think it is and that the discourse aims to justify a war, not to report the facts.

By Domenico Losurdo

What is the nature of the conflict that has engulfed Syria in recent months? Through this article, I wish to invite all those who uphold the cause of peace and democracy in international relations to ask themselves a few basic questions, which, for my part, I will try to respond to by giving the limelight to newspapers and journalists which can not be suspected of complicity with the leadership in Damascus.

1. In the first place, it would be advisable to find out what the conditions prevailing in this Middle Eastern country were before the Assads (father and son) and the current regime came to power in 1970. Well, before then, "the Syrian Republic was a weak and unstable state, an arena in which regional and international rivalries were played out;" the events of recent months have pushed Syria back to its "pre-1970 state." Such are the terms used by Itamar Rabinovitch, former Israeli ambassador to Washington, in The International Herald Tribune [1]. The first conclusion that can be drawn is: The revolt supported primarily by the United States and the European Union could push Syria back to a semi-colonial condition.

For the rest click here.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has made a 180 degree turn during the last election campaign. He has since committed his country to war against Libya and dreams of a confrontation with Syria.