How to tell that neither the UN nor Russia is serious about resolving the crisis in Syria or aiding the Syrian people.

Russia: Assad not required to step down

Moscow insists UN-brokered peace plan does not mandate change in current Damascus regime

Associated Press

An international conference held in Geneva Saturday accepted a UN-brokered peace plan for Syria, but left open whether the country's president could be part of a transitional government.

 

Russia's foreign minister said that the UN-brokered peace plan for Syria agreed on by major powers does not require the ouster of President Bashar Assad.
. . .
Syria envoy Kofi Annan said following talks that "it is for the people of Syria to come to a political agreement."

 
"I will doubt that the Syrians who have fought so hard to have independence ... will select people with blood on their hands to lead them," he said.

 
The envoy earlier warned the permanent members of the UN Security Council – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States – that if they fail to act at the talks hosted by the United Nations at its European headquarters in Geneva, they face an international crisis of "grave severity" that could spark violence across the region and provide a new front for terrorism.
. . .
The United Nations says violence in the country has worsened since a cease-fire deal in April, and the bloodshed appears to be taking on dangerous sectarian overtones, with growing numbers of Syrians targeted on account of their religion. The increasing militarization of both sides in the conflict has Syria heading toward civil war.

full article:
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-42493...

If that Patrick Henningsen is the same a'ho who was on the 'Alex Jones' show, his opinions are too far out in wingnut conspiranutter territory for me to be bothered with.

 

I'd like to see some actual *details* on which 'Western' nations are supporting such groups and where these 'foreign fighters' are coming from.

The guy claims to be a 'journalist', and claims further that 'mainstream media' are sitting on the real story - so what's his excuse for not being able to provide such details?

Otherwise, it's just hearsay & innuendo from another conspiracy wanker.  And WHY would he do that, you ask?  For the money - as readership of his e-zine, etc goes up, he can charge more for the ads there, etc, etc.  

The above is simply my conjecture:  at this point, it's as good as Pat's.  Or perhaps better?  : ))