Topic: The barbarity that is Syria

[TepidT2O]

Which is based on those honest guys at the Israeli Intelligence department. I am still looking for this conclusive proof of the Iraqi having weapons of mass destruction, they also had proof about that.

They are supposed to have recordings of the telephone conversations... Who knows...

I'm not sure who you attack?  What targets?

Who are the good guys anyway?

It's a hideously unpleasant situation, and gassing people is hideous..... But will our intervention make things better in the medium to long term?  If they can, how can we achieve this?

[Sinos]

Which is based on those honest guys at the Israeli Intelligence department. I am still looking for this conclusive proof of the Iraqi having weapons of mass destruction, they also had proof about that.

The NSA won't need the Israelis help to capture Syrian battlefield comms.

are you saying the Syrian civilians and MSF are lying about the use of chemical weapons?

[Fiasco]

They are supposed to have recordings of the telephone conversations... Who knows...

I'm not sure who you attack?  What targets?

Who are the good guys anyway?

It's a hideously unpleasant situation, and gassing people is hideous..... But will our intervention make things better in the medium to long term?  If they can, how can we achieve this?

Almost certainly not and I think that has been acknowledged by many by saying this isn't about regime change. Comparisons to Libya have been brought up and to some the situations may be similar but only on the face of it. If you look at the state of Libya now it's hardly better than it was before Gadaffi and some would argue it is even worse. If that is what has happened in removing a dictator then I don't know what the goal will be knowing Assad won't be removed due to any strike.

If it's a matter of sending warning to Syria to stop using chemical weapons then it's a very simplistic view in my opinion. You are risking provoking Assad into doing to again ( may not be right away ) and then what? Next time consider putting boots on the ground or sending F-15's in? I don't want to go into detail as frankly I'm a bit sleepy but there are too many imponderables for it to make enough sense to do anything.

[warkstache]

ROBERT FISK

Tuesday 27 August 2013

Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?

Does Fisk know how dumb that sounds? It's just part and parcel of his Great War for Civilization.

Pissing on the guy occupying the Black House may be fashionable, but implying that he's stupid for opposing the same asshole as another asshole in the middle east is, well, stupid. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Fisk should know that, or at least, acknowledge the picture above.

Unfortunately, Fisk has become as disingenuous as the governments he rails against. He never passes up an opportunity these days to mock them for what he perceives as simplistic and ignorant stumbling through a Middle East where all problems can be traced back to "intervention". He accuses Obama of lining up with Al Qaeda and laughs at him. How the mighty Fisk has fallen.

He reserves none of his trademark vitriol for the villains in his immediate geographic area. Listening to Fisk rant and rave as he publicly fingers "Obama" as dumb and evil, one cannot help notice his polite reservation as he fails to out and name Arabs who die at the hands of other Arabs with the same enthusiasm. Indeed, when asked last year about an Assad's propensity to dish out a chemical Hama, Robert Fisk diverted attention and changed the subject by penning an article that started and ended with a 1917 British chemical attack. 

Maybe the Beirut sheesha smoke has gotten to the old man's head after all these years. More likely, he's sober enough to shut the fuck up and toe the party line, selling a few overly complicated paragraphs each week for his retirement paycheck.

His legacy as a legendary war reporter - a man who went partially deaf because he sat too close to Saddam's artillery watching them fire at Iranian soldiers - has been relegated to one of a borderline crackpot who re-bleats overly complicated conspiracy theories. He went from authoring two leading, indeed arguably unrivalled, masterpieces on the Middle East that bridged journalism and literature like few others have, to falling off that cutting edge into the same backward cesspool he's been covering. 

It pains me to say it, but Robert Fisk has found himself caught in a race between relevancy and retirement. He's losing that race, much like the rest of the Umma.

[TepidT2O]

From the onion

By Bashar Al-Assad

Well, here we are. It’s been two years of fighting, over 100,000 people are dead, there are no signs of this war ending, and a week ago I used chemical weapons on my own people. If you don’t do anything about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. If you do something about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. Morally speaking, you’re on the hook for those deaths no matter how you look at it.

So, it’s your move, America. What’s it going to be?

I’ve looked at your options, and I’m going to be honest here, I feel for you. Not exactly an embarrassment of riches you’ve got to choose from, strategy-wise. I mean, my God, there are just so many variables to consider, so many possible paths to choose, each fraught with incredible peril, and each leading back to the very real, very likely possibility that no matter what you do it’s going to backfire in a big, big way. It’s a good old-fashioned mess, is what this is! And now, you have to make some sort of decision that you can live with.

So, where do I begin? Well, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but let’s start with the fact that my alliance with Russia and China means that nothing you decide to do will have the official support of the UN Security Council. So, right off the bat, I’ve already eliminated the possibility of a legally sound united coalition like in Libya or the First Gulf War. Boom. Gone. Off the table.

Now, let’s say you’re okay with that, and you decide to go ahead with, oh, I don’t know, a bombing campaign. Now, personally, I can see how that might seem like an attractive option for you. No boots on the ground, it sends a clear message, you could cripple some of my government’s infrastructure, and it’s a quick, clean, easy way to punish me and make you look strong in the face of my unimaginable tyranny. But let’s get real here. Any bombing campaign capable of being truly devastating to my regime would also end up killing a ton of innocent civilians, as such things always do, which I imagine is the kind of outcome you people would feel very guilty about. You know, seeing as you are so up in arms to begin with about innocent Syrians dying. Plus, you’d stoke a lot of anti-American hatred and quite possibly create a whole new generation of Syrian-born jihadists ready to punish the United States for its reckless warmongering and yadda yadda yadda.

Okay, what else? Well, you could play small-ball and hope that limited airstrikes to a few of my key military installations will send me the message to refrain from using chemical weapons again, but, c’mon, check me out: I’m ruthless, I’m desperate, and I’m going to do everything I can to stay in power. I’d use chemical weapons again in a heartbeat. You know that. And I know you know that. Hell, I want to help you guys out here, but you gotta be realistic. Trust me, I am incapable of being taught a lesson at this point. Got it? I am too far gone. Way too far gone.

Oh, and I know some of you think a no-fly zone will do the trick, but we both know you can’t stomach the estimated $1 billion a month that would cost, so wave bye-bye to that one, too.

Moving on.

I suppose you could always, you know, not respond with military force at all. But how can you do that? I pumped sarin gas into the lungs of my own people, for God’s sake! You can’t just let me get away with that, can you? I mean, I guess you easily could, and spare yourself all of this headache, but then you would probably lose any of your remaining moral high ground on the world stage and make everything from the Geneva Conventions to America’s reputation as a beacon for freedom and democracy around the world look like a complete sham.

And, hey, as long as we’re just throwing stuff out there, let’s consider a ground invasion for a moment. Now, even if you could reasonably fund a ground invasion, which I’m pretty sure you can’t, what exactly would such an invasion accomplish in the long term? I suppose it’s possible that you could come in and sweep me out the door and that would be the end of it. It’s possible. You know, like, in the sense that seeing a majestic white Bengal tiger in the wild is possible. Or, more likely, you could find yourself entrenched in a full-blown civil war that drags on for 15 years and sets off further turmoil in the rest of the region, leading to even more dead bodies for your country and mine, and even more virulent hatred of America. In fact, boy, maybe this is the one option that should be totally off the table.

Oh, and speaking of me being toppled from power, let’s say, just for fun, that tomorrow I were to somehow be dethroned. Who’s in charge? Half of these rebel groups refuse to work with one another and it’s getting harder to tell which ones are actually just Islamic extremists looking to fill a potential power vacuum. We’ve got Christians, Sunnis, and Shias all poised to fight one another for control should I fall. You want to be the ones sorting through that mess when you’re trying to build a new government? I didn’t think so.

So, all in all, quite the pickle you’re in, isn’t it? I have to say, I do not envy you here. Really curious to see where you go with this one.

I’ll leave you with this: I am insane. Not insane enough to generate worldwide unanimity that I cannot remain in charge of my own country. That would make this a lot easier. No, unfortunately, I’m just sane and stable enough to remain in power and devise cunning military and political strategies while at the same time adhering to a standard of morality that only the most perverse and sociopathic among us would be capable of adopting. But nevertheless, I am insane, so do with that information what you will.

Long story short, I’m going to keep doing my best to hold on to my country no matter what the cost. If that means bombing entire towns, murdering small children, or shooting at UN weapons inspectors, so be it. I’m in this for the long haul. And you will do...whatever it is you’re going to do, which is totally up to you. Your call.

Anyway, let me know what you decide. I’ll be waiting

[kesey]

Known unknowns! I knew it was them! Even when it was the unknown knowns, I knew it was them!

Known unknowns ...

Hope you aint taking the piss there.

[TepidT2O]

Hope you aint taking the piss there.

No, it's such a complex situations that you know there are forces at work that we don't understand.

It's impossibly difficult.

[Red Beret]

Ironic that Labour seem to have cold feet on this.

[Malaysian Kopite]

(Reuters) - Russia is sending two warships to the eastern Mediterranean, Interfax news agency said on Thursday, as Western powers prepare for military action over last week's alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria.

Interfax news agency quoted a source in the armed forces' general staff as saying a missile cruiser and an anti-submarine ship would arrive in the coming days because of the "well-known situation" - a clear reference to the conflict in Syria.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-russia-navy-idUSBRE97S0AK20130829

[DerKaiser]

The UN investigation hasn't even finished and plans for war were already in motion. We're the opressors. We're soliciting the American imperialists. Shameful all-round.

[Sinos]

The UN investigation hasn't even finished and plans for war were already in motion. We're the opressors. We're soliciting the American imperialists. Shameful all-round.

and what do you call a man that has slaughtered 100,000+ people to preserve his dictatorship?

[Yorkykopite]

and what do you call a man that has slaughtered 100,000+ people to preserve his dictatorship?

Who cares about that? The blame has to fall on America. It has to! It has to!

[robertobaggio37]

and what do you call a man that has slaughtered 100,000+ people to preserve his dictatorship?

Can you prove that?

[RedRabbit]

Being prepared is not an act of aggression.

Not being prepared before the results of the investigation would be stupid.

[DerKaiser]

and what do you call a man that has slaughtered 100,000+ people to preserve his dictatorship?

And what's the alternative? Militiant islamist groups? I know who I'd pick. And pulling figures out your arse isn't gonna help.

[Sinos]

Can you prove that?

I can't prove it but I'm willing to trust UN estimates of the body count.

 

And what's the alternative? Militiant islamist groups? I know who I'd pick. And pulling figures out your arse isn't gonna help.

We support the FSA with arms and technical assistance like we should have from the beginning. Your path would preserve a dictatorship and further enhance the status of the terrorist group Hizballah.

[Sinos]

Who cares about that? The blame has to fall on America. It has to! It has to!

There is a legitimate argument to be made against intervention, but this lot only seem capable of repeating a couple of points from the last Seamus Milne op-ed piece that they read.

On a personally note I just want to thank you for responding to the idiocy on display in this thread in such a calm and reasonable fashion.

[Yorkykopite]

And pulling figures out your arse isn't gonna help.

He didn't "pull them out of his arse". He just told you. They were the UN figures.

Those figures are a little less than the ones given by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which only counts corroborated deaths, and a little more than those posted by the Centre for the Documentation of Violations.

I know it's in your interests to make the Fascist regime in Damascus appear less violent than it really is. But it's stupid to claim that well-documented statistics are simply 'pulled out of your arse'. 

[Yorkykopite]

There is a legitimate argument to be made against intervention, but this lot only seem capable of repeating a couple of points from the last Seamus Milne op-ed piece that they read.

There are many legitimate arguments for not intervening. It would be unusual if there weren't. But there are some excellent ones for intervening too and I simply cannot trust the good faith of anyone who denies this. The result is called a dilemma and, you're right, some people struggle to recognise such a thing. Seamus Milne is one, as you say. But Seamus Milne has a dishonourable record of supporting vicious tyrannies all over the world. It goes back to his well-publicised support for the pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union I think.

There's some cracking posters in this thread though. Even this morning we had a penetrating post from Warkstache.

[Barney_Rubble]

the Black House

What's that about?

[Yorkykopite]

What's that about?

Sounds to me like an affectionate term for the Obama residence. Kind of nice on this 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.

[lionel_messias]

Sounds to me like an affectionate term for the Obama residence. Kind of nice on this 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.

Doesn't sound like that to me. Strange interpretation.

[Yorkykopite]

Bit like the Windies calling the destruction of England's cricket team in the mid-80s a 'blackwash'. Painful at the time. But clever too. 

[lionel_messias]

Bit like the Windies calling the destruction of England's cricket team in the mid-80s a 'blackwash'. Painful at the time. But clever too. 

Not really, but let's see if the poster replies for himself.

[Yorkykopite]

Not really, but let's see if the poster replies for himself.

Why bother. You seem to have him taped.

[Fiasco]

Ed Miliband is all over the place here.

[Gods_Left_Boot]

Oh, well...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.
Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed.
Damascus has recently facing growing Western accusations that its forces used such weapons, which President Obama has described as crossing a red line. But Ms. del Ponte’s remarks may serve to shift the focus of international concern.
Ms. del Ponte, who in 1999 was appointed to head the U.N. war crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, has sometimes been a controversial figure. She was removed from her Rwanda post by the U.N. Security Council in 2003, but she continued as the chief prosecutor for the Yugoslav tribunal until 2008.
Ms. del Ponte, a former Swiss prosecutor and attorney general, told Swiss TV: “Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals. According to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated.”
She gave no further details, the BBC said.
The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria was established in August 2011 to examine alleged violations of human rights in the Syrian conflict which started in March that year.

It is due to issue its next report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in June.
Rebel Free Syrian Army spokesman Louay Almokdad denied that rebels had use chemical weapons.
“In any case, we don’t have the mechanism to launch these kinds of weapons, which would need missiles that can carry chemical warheads, and we in the FSA do not possess these kind of capabilities,” Mr. Almokdad told CNN.
“More importantly, we do not aspire to have (chemical weapons) because we view our battle with the regime as a battle for the establishment of a free democratic state. … We want to build a free democratic state that recognizes and abides by all international accords and agreements — and chemical and biological warfare is something forbidden legally and internationally.”
 
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

[warkstache]

Oh, well...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.
Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

What's the date of that article?

[Red Beret]

At the end of the day, the Western powers blunder in where they're not needed and sit on their hands when they are.  Is it any wonder we look like idiots?

[TepidT2O]

At the end of the day, the Western powers blunder in where they're not needed and sit on their hands when they are.  Is it any wonder we look like idiots?

People are using Sarin to slaughter other people.

Of course there should be intervention, the people dying are innocent.

Who to help, how to help?  Goodness knows.

Maybe it's better to do something rather than nothing though?

[Zeb]

There's been chemical weapons attacks for months. Why now? Don't mean to be too cynical. The voices in our military who can speak out are saying 'are you nuts?' very loudly. The same for those in the US military. There are Russian and Iranian troops in Syria who will almost certainly be killed in any action taken. And we're doing precisely what we were hoping to avoid when this little religious/ethnic civil war kicked off in the first place - dive in with two feet and be seen to support one side which is equally nasty as the other. You've got Chechen fighters being funded by the Saudis in there fighting against Hezbollah and Iran. Which brand of fundamentalist Islamic state would you like on the borders of Turkey? Are we prepared to go in and prevent the massacres which will happen if we tip the balance so that one side can push on outside of its little ethnic boundaries and go on a good old ethnic cleansing? This isn't Kosovo - where we managed to avoid a war with Russia solely because a British pop star soldier refused to obey a US order to kick off on a group of Russians at an airport and his British general backed him up, telling the Americans 'I refuse to start World War Three for you' - and there's no sign that Russia or China are going to agree to any action anyways. We have no legal mandate to go charging in there. Our moral mandate expired the moment we first decided to ignore chemical weapons being used. That was some decades ago.

It's shitty, it sucks, but we've got to stay the fuck out. Lobbing cruise missiles is worse than doing nothing.

[TravisBickle]

Does anyone know if there are any protests organised in London this week? I rarely get involved in activism but I want to be a part of expressing disgust at Cameron's proposals.

[Yorkykopite]

There's been chemical weapons attacks for months. Why now? Don't mean to be too cynical. The voices in our military who can speak out are saying 'are you nuts?' very loudly. The same for those in the US military. There are Russian and Iranian troops in Syria who will almost certainly be killed in any action taken. And we're doing precisely what we were hoping to avoid when this little religious/ethnic civil war kicked off in the first place - dive in with two feet and be seen to support one side which is equally nasty as the other. You've got Chechen fighters being funded by the Saudis in there fighting against Hezbollah and Iran. Which brand of fundamentalist Islamic state would you like on the borders of Turkey? Are we prepared to go in and prevent the massacres which will happen if we tip the balance so that one side can push on outside of its little ethnic boundaries and go on a good old ethnic cleansing? This isn't Kosovo - where we managed to avoid a war with Russia solely because a British pop star soldier refused to obey a US order to kick off on a group of Russians at an airport and his British general backed him up, telling the Americans 'I refuse to start World War Three for you' - and there's no sign that Russia or China are going to agree to any action anyways. We have no legal mandate to go charging in there. Our moral mandate expired the moment we first decided to ignore chemical weapons being used. That was some decades ago.

It's shitty, it sucks, but we've got to stay the fuck out. Lobbing cruise missiles is worse than doing nothing.

No one is denying it's messy. No one is promising an easy solution. But I'm wondering at some of the statements and assumptions in your post.

I don't think there have been "chemical attacks for months". There have been two probable attacks and only one - the latest - has been open for verification by the UN. Even with verification it is going to difficult politically for the western powers to launch a military strike against Assad. Can you imagine how more difficult it would be if the idea had been mooted after the earlier attack when the UN was in no position to investigate? There's no need to be "cynical" about this. You just need to be realistic. 

I didn't realise that there were voices in our military - and the US one - saying that an air-strike, or cruise missile strike, against Assad would be "nuts" - let alone that they were saying this "very loudly". Is that true? But, of course, the western governments will consult their military commanders and if their advice is anything like you're saying it is then it's doubtful we'll proceed. One of the cornerstones of 'Responsibility to Protect' is the idea that any intervention has to be practical and likely to succeed. 

You're concerned about Russian and Iranian soldiers who might get killed in any air-strike. Here I disagree. They shouldn't be there. They have no mandate. If they are there - and I'm certain Iranian troops are indeed fighting to buttress Assad - then they have not been declared. Tough shit if they get killed.

Finally you call the Syrian crisis in which over 100,000 people have died and a massive proportion of the population are now refugees as "this little religious/civil war". I'm curious.  How many casualties would there need to be before you called it a big war? 

[Yorkykopite]

Does anyone know if there are any protests organised in London this week? I rarely get involved in activism but I want to be a part of expressing disgust at Cameron's proposals.

There'll be something organised by 'Stop The War Coalition' I'm sure.

Oddly enough you won't find them demonstrating outside the Syrian embassy though. I guess that's because, in reality, they really don't mind about the war. 

[۩ Imperator ۩]

My issues:

1) Over 100,000 Syrians have been slaughtered to date. A tiny proportion have been killed by chemical means. Why the method of slaughter has become the crucial issue in Western thinking I have no idea. Killing is killing. If we were going to intervene, it should have been two years ago. The famous 'red line' is a smokescreen. For what? I don't know.

2) Britain has no great historical responsibility for the mess in Syria. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we did. Syria was a French protectorate after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and many of Syria's current problems are a direct legacy of French rule. When Britain supported American action in Iraq, Sarkozy stayed well out of it. If the Yanks do go on another bombathon, we should leave François Hollande with the job of sycophantic cheerleader this time round.

[Red Beret]

People are using Sarin to slaughter other people.

Of course there should be intervention, the people dying are innocent.

Who to help, how to help?  Goodness knows.

Maybe it's better to do something rather than nothing though?

Not arguing.  Just pointing out if we hadn't pissed all over the UN and Iraq 10 years ago we might have a little bit more credibility now.  the other day I actually heard a Labour shadow minister cite Afghanistan and Iraq as reasons for caution!

[KUNGFUDANCER]

There'll be something organised by 'Stop The War Coalition' I'm sure.

Oddly enough you won't find them demonstrating outside the Syrian embassy though. I guess that's because, in reality, they really don't mind about the war. 

500,000+ have died in Somalian conflict, 500,000+ in Sudan, 300,00+ in Columbia conflict, 100,000 in Kurdish/Turkey conflict. Shows how much warmongers care about intervening for "Humanitarian" reasons.

[TepidT2O]

Not arguing.  Just pointing out if we hadn't pissed all over the UN and Iraq 10 years ago we might have a little bit more credibility now.  the other day I actually heard a Labour shadow minister cite Afghanistan and Iraq as reasons for caution!

To be fair to the shadow minister, atleast they have tried to learn from errors.....

You're right about the UN, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't act now.  I think there is no corect action whatever we do though.... There is no correct solution to this one.

[Yorkykopite]

500,000+ have died in Somalian conflict, 500,000+ in Sudan, 300,00+ in Columbia conflict, 100,000 in Kurdish/Turkey conflict. Shows how much warmongers care about intervening for "Humanitarian" reasons.

This facile point has been answered so often that I'm amazed that people still make it.

You give money to Amnesty International? Why? What about Oxfam? Save the Children Fund? Shelter? Why not them? Plus all the others who need your money to prevent avoidable suffering?

So much for your humanitarian reasons contributing to Amnesty.

[KUNGFUDANCER]

This facile point has been answered so often that I'm amazed that people still make it.

You give money to Amnesty International? Why? What about Oxfam? Save the Children Fund? Shelter? Why not them? Plus all the others who need your money to prevent avoidable suffering?

So much for your humanitarian reasons contributing to Amnesty.

No I don't give money to any charity when I'm poor myself. US is $17 trillions in debt, don't wanna add more to it by starting another war.