Syria

[El Pibe]

Fair enough. Hezbollah's stock was high across the muslim world after their resistance in the war of 2006.

I do believe they've squandered some of that by staying so loyal to assad, certainly hamas distanced themselves, but they may yet prove to be on the right side of history (depressingly).

And certainly they've been of some military use in key areas on the Lebanese border, but they are very much preipheral in this.

I actually don't think Syria would do a Saddam (1991 gulf war style) by diverting attention to Israel, that would very much backfire, but as you say, its a tinderbox and as uncleglen says, there are wider sweeping shifts in the Muslim world going on too.

Where it goes is really anyone's guess; I just continue to hold naive hope that the brink can be stepped back from, although I'm pretty sure we're not really at a brink. Maybe pull back from tipping point into the abyss rather than a brink as it's clearly way down the slope.

[polla2256]

True, for all the bluster a limited strike wouldn't necessary mean immediate blow back, but long term maybe. Though on that coin a limited strike may be pointless. It wouldn't end the war.

I don't think the muslim world is to be feared but nor is it to be embraced. I actually support Iran's nuclear program (as long as it's peaceful), here is where a major breakthrough could be made by co-operating with Europe, however this may annex America - though why should they dominate, if they don't like it they should re-base their currency.

[El Pibe]

In fact absolutely key to Middle East stability are a functioning Egypt, a normalised Iran, and an Iraq that sorts itself out.

*If* that can happen then the very militaristic stances of Saudi and Israel really lose their justification.

There's no reason why this can't happen but it needs policies of constructive engagement by Iran, the US, EU, Russia and China. Then meaningful peace negotiations by Israel and the Palestinians.

So no problem then :-/

This without taking into account the rather self-defeating trends in Islam itself.

But you can't blame them, secular modernism failed the Arab world so profoundly.

Funnily enough it was most successful in the Persian world where it was the US that saw fit to spell its doom. WHoops!!!!

[polla2256]

LOL Its all so simple, cant see what all the fuss is about.

[polla2256]

My faith in government is now restored. The revolt is not defeat nor should it be seen as such, it's a positive and progressive action, hang over from Iraq aside parliament is at least waking up to reality and being less guided by American policy.

[El Pibe]

Funnily enough I think this is actually the opposite to Iraq. Intervention is something I'm sure CAmeron would love to have done, but was aware that it would be impossible without US buy in.

When that finally happens he loses his nerve, goes to parliament, and the Iraq hangover truly kicks in.

Ah well. Maybe he can spend his new found lesiure time trying to persuade Turkey to send in the troops or something.

[El Pibe]

More irony in that the FRench are going for it and we're not?

What would be the English equivalent of freedom fries?

Mind you the american people want no part of it this time, so I guess it's of no matter.

An idiot friend of mine shared Palin complaining on facebook.

The 16000 comments consisted of scarily ignorant stuff, mostly consisting of 'it's only happening cos obama is muslim/african/black/evil/commie [delete as appropriate]'

[david_carnell]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> More irony in that the FRench are going for it and

> we're not?

>

> What would be the English equivalent of freedom

> fries?

>

Pacifist pies?

On a more serious note, this comes from one of my preferred commentators on international affairs:

There is one good reason for the UK to respond, despite what Parliament decided on Thursday night. This is because Bashar used chemical weapons ? a uniquely horrifying weapon, which the international community has outlawed. This is a difficult argument to accept. Why should there be a difference between a chemical weapon and anything else? Surely what matters is only the number killed, and we should be ?neutral? on what technology is employed?

No. The Laws of War, which we have developed slowly since the early Middle Ages, are based on the principle that certain acts, regardless of the number of casualties, are intrinsically abhorrent. Critics point out that this system can be piecemeal, subjective, and inconsistent. War continues to be hell: and there are many particularly horrifying weapons? such as cluster bombs ? which remain in use. But that is an argument for widening the circle of what is prohibited, not narrowing it.

Take land-mines. Of course, you can kill more people with bullets or even machetes. But the banning of landmines, because of their indiscriminate barbarity, has been an important victory for civilisation. We were right also to ban chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons, not because of the number people they kill but in part because of their dispersal, their potential, and their method of killing.

This atrocity is an opportunity to reinforce the international condemnation of chemical weapons. Even Iran has condemned the attack. Regardless of the vote, we should still work to ensure that countries like Brazil and India take a much stronger position of condemnation.

The Syrian regime?s apparent use of this unholy weapon, shows a willingness not just to ?cross red lines?, but also to flout international law, which is terrifying in its implications for their people and the region. The international community should, I believe, respond, but its response must meet three conditions.

First, it should not make the situation in Syria worse for the civilian population. Second, it should seek to deter Bashar from ever using chemical weapons again. Third, even if it fails to do that ? and it may ? it should send a clear message to deter any other regime, which is tempted to use chemical weapons.

Britain has learned the lessons of Iraq, but it?s in danger of overlearning them. The alternative to grand interventions should not be simply inaction.

[El Pibe]

The general thrust I can agree with, the specifics I have difficulty with.

In fact the whole red line thing seems a bit weird to me.

Is it worse to be killed by sarin than to be in utter terror as militias enter your home, rape your mother and cut the throat of your father in front of you before raping you and slitting your throat.

I thought the thing red line was crossed two years ago, but hey.

Plus, given the choice, I reckon a good nuke death is pretty good, if you could make tiny ones they'd sell really well in swiss clinics.

[miga]

.

[polla2256]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Funnily enough I think this is actually the

> opposite to Iraq. Intervention is something I'm

> sure CAmeron would love to have done, but was

> aware that it would be impossible without US buy

> in.

> When that finally happens he loses his nerve, goes

> to parliament, and the Iraq hangover truly kicks

> in.

>

> Ah well. Maybe he can spend his new found lesiure

> time trying to persuade Turkey to send in the

> troops or something.

Thats what I meant by Iraq hangover.

[polla2256]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The general thrust I can agree with, the specifics

> I have difficulty with.

> In fact the whole red line thing seems a bit weird

> to me.

> Is it worse to be killed by sarin than to be in

> utter terror as militias enter your home, rape

> your mother and cut the throat of your father in

> front of you before raping you and slitting your

> throat.

>

> I thought the thing red line was crossed two years

> ago, but hey.

>

> Plus, given the choice, I reckon a good nuke death

> is pretty good, if you could make tiny ones they'd

> sell really well in swiss clinics.

Now your stealing my ideas - I said to turn Syria to glass a few weeks ago.

[sheemy]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't even parse point 1, but on your second

> point, finding the smoking gun won't happen if

> that's what they're looking for. Do you even

> remember the un inspections of all those bread

> queue massacres and so forth that used to happen

> in Sarajevo, the Serbs got to the point where they

> could safely lob some mortars in from some

> disputed neighbourhood and the UN would say

> nothing could be conclusively proved which would

> inevitably get reported in the press as

> speculation that the muslims were shelling their

> own.

>

> THe red line had already been nicknamed the thick

> red line, and there's no stomach for it in the US,

> so this would likely result in a few tomahawks,

> and that only if the US can calm the Russians

> down. It certainly won't be enough to shift any

> balance of power given that it took a committed 7

> month long air campaign to topple a much weaker

> regime in a less complicated internal conflict

> with a much simpler operating terrain and much

> less sophisticated AA capability.

>

> To me it seems far more obvious that if the

> jihadists are gassing rebel ares that this will

> result in Syrian rebels turning on them, they

> having the greater numbers and the local

> knowledge, ESPECIALLY given that's *exactly* what

> happened in Iraq, and that was provoked by a bit

> of high-handedness and a couple of zealous summary

> executions in the street.

>

> A willingness to bellieve a brutal secular

> governement that has massacred tens of thousands

> and employed murderous militias wouldn't do it but

> 'jihadists' would just sounds like the usual

> Islamophobia to me.

Point one was concerning your ridiculous claim that Assad has invited the UN inspectors in because he fears retaliation for not allowing them entry (though doesn't fear the consequences of commiting a chemical attack). This was my interpretation of what you wrote before. If this is not what you are claiming then let me know as I had considerable trouble 'parsing' what you wrote.

I have been reading a number of your posts on this thread many of which demonstrate either an extraordinary naivety and/or an outdated colonialist outlook on the world. You seem to have styled yourself as a self-appointed expert of the situation in Syria.

The local 'rebels' are not in the majority. Have you seen the image of the refugee camps? The local people have left where they can and those who remain are living in fear of the foreign militants running rampant across their country.

Syria has been swamped with foreign weapons and fighters from across the world not just the region. There are British, Swedish, Australian, American so called 'jihadists' active in Syria and if you don't believe this then there is hard evidence about the nationality of 'rebels' who have been killed in the fighting. (many of their passports have been found)

Your dismissal of my analyses of the situation as Islamaphobic is an unfortunate misinterpretation of what I wrote, but this is probably because you have trouble parsing my bad grammar. I wrote 'jihadists'/ foreign mercenaries because I believe that many of these are in fact paid mercenaries funded and armed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the US and Britain. William Hague has promised these groups money and weapons but the Uk and US (probably along with Turkey) have already been supplying them behind the scenes for some time.

You say I have a 'willingness to believe a brutal secular government' On the contrary the problem is your willingness to believe in the old colonial myth of the brutal dictator while blindly believing that your own western leaders are truthful and benevolent despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary.

[El Pibe]

So you are actually trying to tell me that he is not a brutal dictator?

staggering.

[aysh]

For the pasy 2,5 years the terrorist have been living and looked after in Antakya which is a border of Syria and have smuglled any knid of weapons into Syria too! Jst two weeks before the Un incident have seen posted pictures from Istanbul Rebel ( look a likes) who were in a white van how funny! I follow many protestors since June from Turkey and one thing people were also angry with Turkish govenrment as they are backing the US feeding, sheltering, gunning the rebeles against Assad! They have bben killing people brutally, just horrible! As he has a regime that doesnt allow The Big Middle East Project! Why do you think all muslim countires unsettled and the Christians always made to believe in horror by muslims stories! The most thing i actually hate is power make people hate each other! I grew up in Turkey so I have more inside news as we have a big US and Nato base, every US attack we were in it! Also a lot of CIA culture agents exist as they are very popular in all middle east! To keep, oil, gun sales also bank tansactions....I do not trust the UN either, What has happened to all those chemical weapoms in Iraq for instance?

If you cehcked the past news Antakya has been suffering and the public is sick with what is happening and regime they have by the AKP! If you want to follow inside news follow some independent writers on twitter, maybe annonymous? All the hacker geeks, they work alot :) I wish, love, peace, and the best for people just people...we have to make difference not money or power! ( Sorry if made any mistakes as 2 glasses of wine and running after a toddler all day so excuse me)

[El Pibe]

Ok "sheemy", I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Barring my colonialist tendencies, what do you suggest and why?

[aysh]

Not to mention, the benefits of Israel here ;)

[El Pibe]

Just for the record, because it grated, "You seem to have styled yourself as a self-appointed expert of the situation in Syria".

I really haven't, I'm just interested and I read a lot around it.

I'd say I'm better informed than your average Joe Schmoe, but that doesn't make my opinion any more valid than anyone else's.

Feel free to disagree with me, as I do with you, but don't take it so personally.

[El Pibe]

Aysh, it's hard to argue against the fact that the NATO types have long lost the moral high ground, but I don't think that should necessarily mean that they shouldn't try to do the right thing....whatever the hell that is.

[sheemy]

El Pibe..

The fact that you find it staggering that anyone could possibly think that Assad is not a brutal dictator is further evidence of your colonialist tendencies. Either that or you unquestionably believe the assertions of the western media. You have also said that Nato has lost 'the moral high ground' which implies that Nato had the moral high ground, do you believe that western governments and institutions by default occupy an elevated moral position?

Please can you answer what exactly is it that makes Assad particularly 'brutal' compared to say King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, Erdogan of Turkey, the king of Bahrain or Barack Obama of the US? Please can you tell me one bad word you had heard about Assad before this supposed 'rebellion' or 'uprising' occured? The image of a brutal dictator murdering his own people is one conjured up by the enemies of Syria. Unfortunately you and others have fallen for this (evidently effective) propoganda.

I personally have known Syrians who do not have a bad word to say against Assad. For the supposed 'rebels' it is a different story.

I have no difficulty believing in the possibility that the 'rebel' groups could carry out a chemical attack without any compunction concerning civilian casualties. There have been a number of massacres carried out by this mercenaries, for which the established media tries to point the blame at the Syrian Army/Assad.

You argue that the rebels are local and would not hurt their 'own' people. On the contrary, as I have said before this is not a local uprising. On the contrary you forget the army is made up of actual Syrians but you are happy to believe they are able to massacre and destroy their own community.

[sheemy]

Thank you Aysh for providing some insight into what is really happening in the region.

The real humanitarian disaster in Syria has been caused by regional and western powers flooding Syria with weapons and fighters and funding these rebel groups (also known as terrorists) to destroy the country from within.

If you want evidence of the brutality of rebels groups then please look at the below small sample of acts by the 'rebels' that come to mind.

There was the rebel's massacre of postal workers whose throats were slit and bodies thrown off a building.

- rebel leader Abu Sakkar cuts out and eat the heart of a Syrian soldier ( available on youtube )

- rebels force a young boy to behead a prisoner with a machete ( available on youtube )

- rebels murder catholic priest Father Francois - confirmed by the vatican

- there have been reports that rebels have engaged in the practice of forced marriage of local women (also known as rape)

- recent reports that a rebel commander raped Al Jazeera reporter Ghada Oweis

There are youtube videos showing many of these atrocities where rebels proudly pose with their victims, the western media have chosen to ignore as this hurts the image of the rebels. Excepting the heart eating incident where the BBC actually went to meet and interview the cannibal Abu Sakkar, described his act as a 'ritual bite' and seemed to make light of the incident.

These are the people being funded and armed to wreak havoc in Syria. And all we hear from the western leaders is about the 'brutality' of Assad.

[El Pibe]

I'm confused you state that he's not a brutal dictator by comparing him to a bunch of other brutal dictators.

I tend to think that ordering your army to shoot at and shell your citizens and your air force to indiscriminately bomb them pretty much fits the bills of dictatorial behaviour and brutality, you clearly have a higher tolerance threshold.

The Assads do have form, daddy Assad crushed a rising in Hama with up to 40000 dead back in the 80s..

I get that people are distrustful of the "official " line, whatever that implies, but I get a sense of wilful obstinacy in your stance that smacks of denial.

[sheemy]

Yes my point is all of these I have listed are far worse and more brutal than Assad, but yet do not warrant intervention by the West. David Cameron and his ilke would have us believe that military intervention is a moral necessity in Syria but the massacre in Egypt just the other day doesn't warrant more than a comment.

Why do you believe Assad is intentionally dropping bombs, shooting civilians and destroying his country? Why would he invite UN inspectors and then carry out a chemical attack? Because he is a mindless brutal dictator?

He is fighting a pre-planned insurgency as Aysh's eye witness testimony makes clear. These fighters have hidden themselves in civilian areas. Is is army supposed to sit on its hands while the so called 'rebels' murder and rape the population.

I would be interested to know where have you taken the idea that Assad has been indiscriminately bombing civilians areas? What particular knowledge of the situation do you have which hasn't been fed to you as the 'official line'

[El Pibe]

A free and independent press from many countries has catalogued the many atrocities committed by the regime, but you seem intent on dismissing it as American propaganda, which leaves us at an impasse.

We cannot discuss this reasonably if you are set on believing your position whilst dismissing any evidence to the contrary.

I'm reminded of Galloway's defence of Saddam.

[sheemy]

A free and independent press: who do you mean by this? Do you mean the Rupert Murdoch empire or the state funded BBC? Or maybe those who are held for 9 hours at an airport under anti-terror laws?

Al-Manar

Press Tv

Russia Today

Hispan TV

New Dehli TV

Are these alternative media outlets to be dismissed? Why, because they are non-western? Are you also dismissing the eye-witness testimony of Aysh who has seen what is happening of the border of Turkey and Syria?

We are not at an impasse in the debate. You are retreating because your assumptions on the situation in Syria have little substance and maybe you are starting to realise this.

You are now resorting to the fallacy of a 'free and independent press'. Your readiness to believe the western imperial official outlets over all these other alternative sources shows what a partial perspective you have. I am happy to discuss the evidence from any news sources, something which I doubt you have considered,.