UKC

wheres this going to end? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18897773 we are lucky in this country

In reply to dale1968: I think The yanks are worried that AQ are getting a foothold in Syria. If they were to get an influence in a country with as much potential as Syria, its big trouble. It would make Somalia and even Afghanistan look like a day in the park.

The problem is that as bad as Assad is, is there anyone yet that the American's/UK/France would be willing to sponsor in power?

In reply to drunken monkey: There is a pretty fair chance that Syria will descend into a sectarian civil-war of Sunnis against everyone (or for that matter everyone against everyone), to the extent that it already hasn't. The Assad regime is very nasty with a history of attrocities against its own people, but the chaos that is likely to follow it may well be worse and will certainly spill over into (at least) Lebanon.

This looks like it is going to be quite a ride, and it aint going to be pretty. Like many of today's systemic problems, there is no obvious or realistic solution to improve matters or even to stop them getting a lot worse.

In reply to drunken monkey: we were friends with Assad so I don't think they would presume to get in bed with any pretenders to rule Syria, as long as they don't be come a vassal state of Iran

In reply to dale1968:

Any evidence for that statement at all?

"Friends with" rather than recognising that that was the regime in place and there was bugger-all we could do about it, so need to deal with the reality on the ground?

In reply to Simon4: no, I don't believe we were sending birthday cards http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2578355.stm but not sure this would happen now

In reply to Simon4:

Sadly, it already has. The BBC World Service had a documentary 2 or 3 months back IIRC about fighting in Lebanon in villages that have both Alawi and Sunni residents. Heavy weapons used, houses destroyed etc.

In reply to dale1968: There was a bit of a belief that Assad was a moderate for a time, also that his (quite glamorous) wife was westernised. Assad himself was an optician in Britain, speaks good English and sounds quite reasonable and balanced, not at all a Ghadaffi or Mugabe type. Quite disturbing in a way, you could perfectly well imagine going to see him and saying "Mr Assad, I've still got a problem with my eyes, what can be done now" and he would inspect them and pronounce some reasonable sounding solution. He was also thought for a time to be not interested in politics and was just dragged back when his brother was killed in a car crash.

He either was never as moderate and apolitical as he seemed or it just wasn't possible in a very sectarian and divided society to preserve a regime with a history of ruthless brutality in any other way other than to carry on as previously, i.e. by as much repression as was possible.

I still don't think that "we" were friendly with him, I have no brief for Blair/Brown et all, but at that point they were just exploring what might have been some relaxation in an authoritarian regime with a lot of links to extreme islamism and Iran. Syria has always been a Russian client-state, with the usual effect that the client often ends up owning the patron, rather than the other way around.

In reply to dale1968:

Interestingly not read much about Iranian support of late. Have I just missed stuff of have they taken a back seat behind the Russians? Anyone been following that line of reporting?

I've visited and travelled around Syria many times and loved the country and the people, in fact I'm very concerned about my agent, a Christian living in Damascus with his young wife and kids. He stayed at my house for three months when his Dad was training him up for the family business.

It will certainly be a Pandora's Box when Assad goes; all I can hope is that educated Syrians living in exile will be able to pool their efforts and get the country running again and safe for everybody.

My belief is that Assad and his family live in a state of genuine ignorance about the events, fed on a diet of misinformation by the senior Syrians who surround them. As somebody said on R4 last night, Assad won't wake up to reality until it's too late.

In reply to SFM: As ever, it's all about Israel. Check out James Rubin at FP.com http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/04/the_real_reason_to_interve...

In reply to iksander: Don't see the "its all about Isreal".

Its about Isreal, Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, in other words Syria is in an incredibly pivotal position in a very volatile region and has had a dodgy record as long as your arm, from internal repression to very strong suspicion of involvement with regional wars, terrorism probably including the Lockerbie bomb and all manner of dubious and inflamatory activities.

Its about Syria - which is a handgrenade in a china shop.

In reply to drunken monkey:


Then maybe they should stop supporting them then? Mrs Clinton could reduce her warmongering propaganda too.

It's clear to me that Syria's neighbours are conspicuous by their silence. None wants to get involved because they all recognise that this is going to turn very very nasty indeed with possible repercussions in their own countries.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: throw away statements,any thing constructive or informative to say?

In reply to Simon4:

Who's got the nukes?

In reply to dale1968:

It may be a "throwaway" but it happens to be the truth. The way the USA and it's lackeys in Saudi Arabia and Qatar are stirring up the Sunnis in Syria is absolutely disgusting, as is the language used by Clinton. She's the head of diplomacy of the most powerful country in the world and the other day she said, on video, of their Libyan escapade "We came, we saw, he died!" - she said it while smiling and giggling to the camera.

youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y&

How can such a b*stard be allowed so much power?

Meanwhile the side effects of encouraging, arming and financing the Libyan AQ is being felt as far away as Mali and the war in Syria has reached Damascus... all quite the opposite of "constructive", altogether "destructive", but no matter to the West and those who fall for the bullshit, they're only baddies in black hats (and beards) after all, and those nasties in Iran just have to go, don't they? All with your country's approval and the support of the majority of the population... including you?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


She isn't really, she's the head representative of the US's foreign policy. She can be as diplomatic or as undiplomatic as her and her boss see fit.


It wasn't the other day, it was last October, seconds after being told he had been killed. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051826/We-came-saw-died-What-Hilla...

In reply to SFM:


The bombing of the bus full of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria yesterday is quite likely to have been Hezbollah, backed as ever by Iran. Some analysts who follow Hezbollah think it might be Iran trying to take pressure of Assad by provoking Israel into striking someone/something in response.

In reply to Rigid Raider: Turkey are quite vocal, consulting under the NATO mutual defence clause after Syria shot their plane down. Iraq is a Shiite regime, towing the Iranian line. Jordan are keeping quiet and hoping this all this regime change talk doesn't catch on at home. Lebanon's the key piece though as the buffer to Israel.

In reply to iksander:

That's an interesting article and provides a bit of insight and different viewpoints to what I have seen before. Thanks for the link.

In reply to TobyA:

Ties in(to an extent) with what was said in that article.

In reply to iksander:

I can't help but think the Turkish plane was a dummy or decoy to provoke Syria into doing something rash and thus giving Turkey leverage to "act". Maybe I'm being too cynical though.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: What has Gaddafi got to do with Syria?

In reply to SFM:

You are not being cynical at all, quite the opposite as you attribute enough decency to the Turkish government to send a dummy plane - it was a normal plane with a normal crew, sent to their deaths in the name of higher goals.

In reply to drunken monkey:

Perhaps you've been out of the country for a while? Libya was destabilised and then attacked using the same basic methods as Syria is today. The only problem for the Clintonesque hordes is that for Libya the Russians and Chinese were foolish enough to trust the West when the UN "humanitarian" motion was voted and so they didn't veto it - they won't make that mistake again.

At the time of the NATO aggression against Libya I, and many others, said that Syria could be next on the list, and it turns out to have been true.

In reply to TobyA:


The voice of Israel speaks again! To take your line, have you any proof of this?

As for Clinton, she is the figurehead who represents the USA in the world, she would have been kicked out of any normal democratic government for saying what she did when she did and the way she did. I realise that her experiences with a bar steward like her hubby may have made her bitter where men are concerned but does this excuse such language from someone in her position?

I see you are not particularly scandalised by the bomb attack that murdered many Syrian politicians and military people yesterday... Like for John Wayne you reckon them redskins just have to bite the dust, Gaddafi, Bin Laden, why waste time on a trial when a bullet or a sharp stick up the arse can do the job more cheaply eh?

Meanwhile the world looks on as Western powers sink to lower moral lows every day, all to the applause of the "chattering classes".

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Whatever.


Hopefully the Bulgarian police will find out who did it and why, but Israel and Iran are in a dirty war against each other, so if it wasn't AQ (although you seem to think they are American run these days) then the most likely group was Hezbollah or Iranian agents directly. Remember the bombings in Georgia and Delhi earlier this year? And the the cluster f*** in Bangkok when those three Iranians blew themselves up whilst assembling a another sticky bomb? Hezbollah's attacks for Iran have been far more "successful" as the families of the 80 odd Argentinians they murdered in early 90s will tell you.


You are bizarrely obsessed with this Bruce. BTW, why did you never comment on Frank's thread about the Libyan election results?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


This is simply bollocks; as anyone with even a passing interest can see. The West doesn't really want to intervene in Syria because they don't much like either side of the conflict; and even if they did want to, they have no idea what they could really do. Anti-government Syrians feels totally sold out by democratic governments in the west who say they support democracy elsewhere but have done very little to help them.

In reply to TobyA:

So the West don't want to intervene in Syria? Like they didn't in Libya? Even the Daily Mail would do better than this last post of yours... Why have they all been pushing sanctions so strongly then? Why are they training Syrian rebels in Turkey then? Why are Clinton, Cameron, Sarkozy/Holland continually braying out their anti-Syrian propaganda. If it wasn't for Russia and China they would already be bombing the place.

As for the Libyan elections, I didn't see a thread about it but I could ask you why you and Western media in general gave so little mention, and absolutely no support, to the recent elections in Syria? You only like elections that return people you approve of I suppose.

In reply to dale1968:

Haha. Tragically it will end with many innocent people killed and a western allies friendly semi-installed puppet government that acquiesces to the western countries' wishes for the region. Weren't you paying attention to every other war in that region in the last 100 years? Read Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope" or "The Anglo American Establishment" for further details.

And although I do understand what you are getting at about being lucky, there is no luck involved we (the western powers) are in the position that we are in because we keep a tight grip on countries that don't play by our rules. The empire never faded it just changed shape and became less obvious to the naked eye.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


So why in a year and a half has there been basically nothing done beyond some limited covert support of the rebels mainly led by anti-Assad Arab countries? How many Syrians have been killed by their government in that time? The sanctions on Burma were significantly stronger, but that was it - sanctions, just like here. Sanctions is what you do when you don't want to or can't intervene in more direct ways.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Do you mean the constitutional referendum in Syria back in February? If so it was discussed here at some length as I remember it, and you claimed then it had been ignored by the Western media despite us all giving you links to the BBC etc. with reports on it.

Do you know what the results in Libya actually were Bruce?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think the kind of elections that TobyA likes are the free and fair variety. I wasn't aware that there had been recent elections in Syria. Would they be of the free and fair variety? As for the Libya elections, I'm surprised that you haven't commented on them seeing as they appear to be have been 'free and fair' and not controlled by the the West. The same goes for the Egyptian elections. So much for your daft conspiracy theories.

In reply to Pekkie: Human rights in Libya are worse now than under Gadaffi, not the best outcome so far.

In reply to iksander:

No doubt. And it will be messy for some time. But at least the Libyans will now be free to sort out their own problems. Though there again, if you check Wikipedia on the Gadaffi years you will come up with quite a bit of unpleasantness such as massacres and public executions (leaving out the issue of putting bombs on British airliners and murdering British policewomen). Which perhaps explains Gadaffi's barbaric end.

In reply to iksander:

This is a complicated intra-Arab conflict, well able to supply their own bad-guys and innocent victims.
But, as ever, all you are on about Israel.

In reply to dale1968:

UPDATE: Syrian rebels have reportedly seized some border posts with Turkey and Iraq.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18918473

In reply to MikeTS:
But, as ever, all you are on about Israel.

I was reading something interesting earlier today that was linking Israel with the conflict; Israel is apparently the excuse for Syria holding possibly the worlds largest stockpile of Cat1 chemical weapons. While pointing the finger for Syrian issues at Israel is pretty pointless the quantity of weapons and the politics of the wider region do make it a rather difficult problem to mediate.

In reply to Reach>Talent:
Israel is apparently the excuse for Syria holding possibly the worlds largest stockpile of Cat1 chemical weapons.

Yes, Syria has some evil stuff. Israel wiped out a nuclear weapons facility in Syria a couple of years ago. Its dilemma is now what to do about the chemical weapons, to stop them getting into the wrong hands or even being deployed as diversionary action.
All I know is that if Israel does something to rid the world of this threat then the UN will condemn Israel in terms much more severe than it has ever condemned Assad for killing his people.

In reply to MikeTS:

For UN read Russia and China?

In reply to MikeTS:

"No issue is more divisive in the Middle East than the Israel-Palestinian conflict." Marine Corps Midrange Threat Estimate: 2005-2015

BTW have you seen the list of UN Resolutions broken by Israel recently? http://salemshalom.blogspot.co.uk/2007/12/heres-list-of-u.html

Vile as it is, the Assad regime has a lot of genuine support internally and regionally because of their opposition to Israel.

In reply to MikeTS: And since when has Israel given a shit about what anyone else thinks?

In reply to TobyA:


As I said above simply because the Russians and Chinese won't let them and have used their veto - once bitten etc.

Glad you admit there are covert operations going on.

In reply to Pekkie:


So Gaddafi wasn't a Libyan then? Remind me who kicked the foreign military bases out of Libya, who first imposed oil prices in line with other countries and finally took over oil production in Libya so the the Libyan people benefited rather than US share holders? Who provided Libyans with the highest standard of living in Africa and comparative, compared to most of Africa, peace and security?

When you have answered these simple questions, who organised mass executions of black Libyans and black immigrant workers to the extent of turning a whole town into a gutted ghost town?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

All answered before. With a small population and lots of oil it isn't hard to understand why Libya has a relatively high standard of living. The problem was that access to this wealth was controlled via favoured tribes and Gadaffi cronies. This is one of the biggest drivers of the Arab Spring. The new president of Egypt, Morsi, pointed to this problem in his election manifesto: 30 families control Egypt's wealth. The obvious follow on question to this is 'won't other tribes and groups simply take over after each revolution?'. Obviously a danger but less likely if a free press and free elections cab be achieved.

The oppression of black Libyans and migrant workers is because Gadaffi used them to do his dirty work. Check wikipedia for Gadaffi era massacres and public executions. Stuff like that leaves a legacy of hatred and desire for revenge.

The question you've got to ask yourself is whether or not the Arab Spring originated within the countries concerned or is it all down to a Western conspiracy with support from some Arab states. Sure, the West intervened in Libya, but not in Egypt, Tunisia or now, Syria. The weight of evidence doesn't seem to support the existence of a paranoid conspiracy with CIA agents being parachuted in.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


dunno. Give us a clue?
I am guessing it cant be the same person who allowed a foreign military base in Tartus?

In reply to Pekkie:


I did, there were very few... and most were people who attempted to kill Gaddafi or similar violent acts. The one major event that was a factor in the events leading to the recent events was an alleged prison massacre but there is little proof and amongst the dead there were many prison staff, killed by the prisoners. What is certain is that the NATO lead civil war and the bombardment killed an order of magnitude more, and in a few months rather than 40 years.


The intervention in Egypt and Tunisia was when the USA stopped propping up their client regimes and gave the rebels the go ahead... hardly negligible, especially when one considers what happened in those countries where the USA continued to support the dictators.

As for Syria, if you really haven't noticed the outside intervention there, from the initial internet campaigns, training of exile groups, the ever increasing "sanctions" imposed by both the USA and the EU, the well documented arrival of islamic (Sunni) extremists from Libya, Iraq and elsewhere, nor noticed the extremely violent rhetoric of the USA, especially from the ever open mouth of Mrs Clinton, but well supported by Cameron, Sarkozy, Holland etc. then I really don't know how to convince you! It's not a conspiracy it is quite open and plain for any who wants to see to see.

It seems you don't. Is there a reason?

In reply to dissonance:

An odd question, is there no difference between the multitude of US bases imposed throughout the world and the minor port facilities accorded to the USSR and now the Russians in Syria (who perhaps feel the need for a little anti-aircraft support at present after what happened in Libya?)... Is even one non Western base too much for a defender of the free world?

In return for your question, where have the yanks recently completed one of the biggest military bases in the world, in return for services rendered. A clue, the country is also a major player in the drugs road from East to West and starts with a K and finishes with an o.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

no, i was just trying to find out who you meant.

Since replacing one USA military base, one used just for training at that, with multiple USSR bases, not just Tartus, for example they based bombers and fighters at the airbase stretches the meaning of "kicked the foreign military bases out of Libya" somewhat. If you went for "kicked out one lot and invited in another" I wouldnt have commented, would have weakened your argument somewhat though.


well yes but its just as easy to compare a single US base to all the USSR bases, although admittedly they tended more to annexation rather than having a base on foreign soil.


you are confusing me with someone who supports the US actions.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

A reason? Could it be that I don't approach the issue with huge blinkers on? You always seem to be on the side of the tyrant against the people. You never seem to consider the people of these countries and their desire for peace and free elections. For you the West is always wrong even when it does something right.

Check this out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

That was Assad's dad. I suppose you'll say that it was a justified police action against Muslim terrorists. Do you think it is OK now for the Syrian regime to use heavy artillery to shell civilian neighbourhoods? No pointing to what the US did in Vietnam or the British in Kenya (which were both wrong, of course). Yes or No.

In reply to Pekkie:


Now they have neither in Libya, and only the former in Syria... happy?

I think the huge blinkers are on those that are unable to see the enormous network of Western, mostly US, military bases throughout the world nor the number of dictators and other distasteful regimes propped up by the USA or peoples oppressed by these agents of the free world! For example do the Saudis or Palestinians have free elections in free countries? If not who makes sure they don't if it's not your friends in Washington?

You keep your blinkers, I'll keep mine.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Do you have a link to either research or at least good reporting done on this? I'm sure war crimes were committed by many of the militias and forces on both sides of the conscripts - but where did the these "mass executions" take place? How many were killed and who are believed to be the perpetrators? You seem to have followed this closely so I would be interested to read more.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>'For example do the Saudis or Palestinians have free elections in free countries? If not who makes sure they don't if it's not your friends in Washington?'
I thought it was the Saudi Royal family who ensure that there are no free elections in Saudi Arabia? There are elections for their toothless version of a a parliament but not for women. Also, the Palestinians have free elections in the areas under their control - any interference would be by the Israelis. Also, ethnic Arabs vote in Israel and have a number of MPs (before you start, I know the Israeli settlement policy is despicable). The US might be guilty of many things but that is pushing it.

Incidentally, you didn't answer my question. Do you think it is acceptable for the Syrian regime to shell civilian areas with heavy artillery? Yes or No? Bet you don't answer this simple question.

In reply to TobyA:

It was in all the papers at the time, I'm sure you saw it really... try googling "massacres of black libyans", as I have just done to make sure it worked, or "Tawerga", the most infamous example.

Why the "butter won't melt in my mouth" act, you don't really expect us to believe you didn't read about this at the time or see it on the telly?

In reply to Pekkie:


And who keeps these tyrants in power? Have you ever heard Clinton screaming about human rights in SA, or calling for UN resolutions on the subject?

Concerning Palestine, how can you talk of free elections when the whole country is dominated by Israeli invaders, who took power by force in 1948 and with half the Palestinians in exile not even able to vote? Those still living in Palestine, either in closely controlled Bantustans or as exiles in their own country can vote but in the conditions of a self proclaimed "Jewish state" in which Arabs, the legitimate population of Palestine are second class citizens... All with the permanent and massive support of the USA... without which this archaic colonial domination wouldn't last long.

That you seem unaware of the role of the USA concerning both these countries shows the difficulty in debating such issues.

As for the Syrian civil war, it's a war, one side is using suicide bombers, snipers and so on while using civilians as human shields, the other side is firing back. What do you expect in a civil war? If the IRA had actually started blocking off whole areas of Belfast and waged war with rocket launchers and a so on as in Syria what sort of reaction would the British Government have had?

In Syria the regime is not the mildest in the world but neither is the situation, the minorities who support Assad think they are fighting for their lives against the risk of a radical Sunni takeover... it's not the Home Counties. If you remember the years of horror that the Lebanese people went through maybe you would understand why they are scared.

But what you are I think doesn't matter as much as what the Syrian people think and for the moment the majority still support Assad, despite what our wonderful media imply, the rebels are not "the Syrian people" they are a minority with a lot of outside support, either mercenaries on the ground or ideological support from the likes of Mrs Clinton and her lap-dogs in the EU, not to mention the financial help for arms and pay from Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc. who are once again acting like US proxies as in Libya, the paymasters of Uncle Sam once again.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You don't debate the issues, though, do you? I'm well aware of the role of the USA concerning Saudi Arabia and Israel. The US supports Saudi Arabia and its mediaeval hand-chopping-off regime because of its oil, and it supports illegal-settlement-supporting Israel because of the Jewish vote back home.

So that means your answer to my question 'do you think it is acceptable for the Syrian regime to shell civilian areas using heavy artillery' is 'Yes'.

In reply to Pekkie:


Your question is as daft and simplistic as if I asked you if you "approved" the various car bombs and suicide bombs that have killed dozens of Syrians, including numerous women and children of late?

Yes or no is not an adequate answer to such questions, especially as first of all we need confirmation of the basic facts, something we simply don't have.

In reply to dale1968:

Be interested to hear Toby's assessment of the contents of this piece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing...

Apparently it has provoked a shit storm in the blogosphere - not sure why.

D

In reply to dale1968:

As always the head of the snake leads the way and Turkey as a German ally and very consciencious North American Terrorist Organisation member will eagerly comply with the wishes of the American empire.

That US secretary of state really is a piece of work though,its almost as though she's forgotten about all those US weapons and encouragement her husband,admin and military machine were supplying to the Turks to massacre,torture and bomb Kurdish civilians in their villages.

Its the same tired old story the NATO fascist bastards and their friends can do whatever they want to their civilians and reserve the right to murder any one or peoples who aren't subserviant by whatever means they can think of,full stop

In reply to Dauphin:

An interesting link, but it won't please many posting here as it dares demonstrate the involvement of the USA in destabilising Syria and encouraging rebels for nearly a decade... Toby will doubtless ask for "proof".

For anyone not interested in proof but willing to watch a slightly different view of the question here's a video:

youtube.com/watch?v=15Eds2B6HlU&

I found it by googling "Tawerga".

In reply to Pekkie:


Probably not. But isn't this what we (the US that is) did in Fallujah? And airstrikes, be they drones or whatever, are little different.

In reply to David Martin:
'But isn't this what we (the US that is) did in Fallujah? And airstrikes, be they drones or whatever, are little different.'

A fair point. Shelling residential areas is also what the Russians did in Grozny and the Israelis did in Lebanon. It just seems a bit of a brutal over reaction when a country's supposed 'security forces' resort to indiscriminate shelling by heavy artillery of residential neighbourhoods. Who are they providing 'security' for? The truth is probably that those neighbourhoods are occupied by tribes opposed to the state and are therefore seen as 'fair game'. It is clear that this is a messy and complicated conflict that stems from Syria's history. It was not instigated by the US parachuting in agents - though Arab countries sympathetic to the Syrian opposition are supplying them with light arms, and the US would love to get rid of Iran's main supporter in the region. The Israelis are probably waiting with bated breath to see what the fall-out is for them.
Conspiracy, probably not. Messy, yes.

In reply to Pekkie:

Do you purposely fail to recognize strategic American State planning in the removal of those they deem uncooperative,from an unconditional love of all things American or do you believe the West's weapons of mass distraction?

In reply to Shona M:

When did I say that I unconditionally love all things American? I suppose it simplifies things if you have an evil satan-like country trying to control the world. Unfortunately, the real world isn't a James Bond movie. If pressed, I would say that the US is 60% good and 40% bad. That's a lot of bad; from slaughtering innocent Iraquis and Afghans to lax gun control and global warming denial etc, etc (etcs could go on for several lines).

In reply to Pekkie:

You keep saying the Syrian government is deliberately shelling civilians but what are you basing this on? If you read the article linked above you will, like me, discover that the much cited "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" is in fact a shopkeeper in Coventry, whose day job is running a clothes shop with his wife! Yet he is quoted as an "authoritative" source not just by the BBC and in Britain but on the French radio and telly too - I heard some "information" from this "reliable source" this afternoon on France Info, the state run 24 hour news radio service.

When the Arab League sent a fact finding team to Syria they didn't stay long before the Saudis pulled them out, there report which was eventually published, but discretely in the West, found that most of the figures quoted in the media were wildly exaggerated, often the facts themselves were inexact and they found themselves rushing off to a "massacre" which hadn't really happened and such like... not what the Arab League and the West wanted to hear so they got their marching orders.

They confirmed that there were violent gangs and a civil war situation, and that was before the massive car bombs that killed dozen at a time and the arrival of fresh arms and ammo through Turkey really got going.

You also insist on this "conspiracy" term when what this really is US and Western foreign policy being applied, just as in Kosovo, Libya, Iraq and elsewhere. It's not a little group of conspirators, it's open for all to see... and has been going on since countries, nations and empires have existed.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>> 'You also insist on this "conspiracy" term when what this really is US and Western foreign policy being applied, just as in Kosovo, Libya, Iraq and elsewhere. It's not a little group of conspirators, it's open for all to see... and has been going on since countries, nations and empires have existed.'

OK, you have a point. But the end result in each case doesn't seem to add up to much in the way of control, does it? If what you say is right.

Kosovo - still controlled by Serbia
Libya - recent elections with secularists/liberals taking control
Iraq - pro-Iranians in power
Egypt - Muslim Brotherhood - albeit a moderate version - won election but still in power struggle with army

If US and Western foreign policy is aiming at world domination then they are not doing a very good job of it are they?

The real truth is probably more along the lines that the US and the West, whilst seeking to protect their economic interests, want to look like good guys to the rest of the world - with the centre of gravity shifting away from them all the time.

In reply to Pekkie:


Well no it isn't, most of it is independent and contains a large newly built US military base.


A pro Western government is nominally in charge, or more to the point a regime that didn't suit the USA has been destroyed, and the oil is flowing again, Western oil companies have got contracts and the Chinese have been eased out... What more do you think the USA wanted?


Iraq is indeed a mess, but no longer presents a danger to Western interests, only to its own long suffering people. Oil is flowing again... Not a total success but pretty much as good as could be expected (from the point of view of the yanks). It has sent a pretty firm warning that pulling their bluff would not be a good idea for any similar regime. The Romans used similar tactics, making an example from time to time.


Not successful from the Western point of view, this could be where they come unstuck - seriously - but it's too early to say.


Even without these recent events I'd say any objective observer would say the USA has done a pretty good job on world domination, they are the only remaining super power since the collapse of the USSR - one of the most successful bits of long term foreign policy ever. The Cold War was launched just after WW2, it took them half a century but they won - capitalism is now the only world economic system, they've wiped the board.

The Jihad against the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, arms supplied by the USA, money 50/50 with Saudi Arabia, was a major factor in this victory, and it's what made them realise just how islam could be manipulated - a war by proxy and troops who fought for little pay. The Twin Towers was a bit of a hiccup but has now been put down to collateral damage and they are using the same tactics again, with NATO providing the air power, a nice little bit of out-sourcing.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Hate to be churlish, Bruce, but...ermm... China? Apparently they even own Weetabix now. As well as most of the USA's foreign debt. And they are busy taking over from the US in Africa. Once they have a couple of carrier battle groups who knows what might happen?

In reply to Pekkie:

Strange,as i don't believe i've ever seen Bruce defend the US,unlike you of course.

In reply to Shona M: The US is the only tyrant? I like you, you're funny, remind us why you were banned again.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

numero uno.

aw ta n at !i must say i've always found your contributions to be hilarious.

For making too many wee ukcers look like imbeciles.

In reply to Shona M:

The full shilling, you are not.

In reply to Pekkie:


China is on the up and up, and the Yanks are clearly getting worried against about the "yellow peril" but for the moment they are an economic power and military power in defensive terms but are far behind the USA in terms of offensive military power. I'm not a military buff but I'm pretty sure they are technically way behind the USA.

Also, until now, they have not gone beyond what they consider to be their historical borders. They are certainly a contender for super power status in the years to come, if they are want this and if there is not a major war with the USA before, which is something I think is possible alas. Obama has made several speeches which tend to suggest this of late.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Have you seen the map of what the Chinese consider their 'historical borders' in the South China Sea? It extends almost to the shores of the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam and Malaysia. Guaranteed to wind up those countries. And whilst they are well behind the US technologicaly, they are catching up fast. They are also developing a carrier fleet and have a large number of 'carrier buster' missiles specifically designed to sink US carriers. We can hope that sense will prevail but.....

In reply to Pekkie:

I read somewhere about how much the pentagon have pressurised all the US allied countries which surround China to buy ever more weapons, missile systems and military equipment from them using China as the threat.If i remember right the combined technological might of these countries alone(Japan,Tiawan,S.Korea etc) is far superior to that of China.

In reply to Shona M: 'I read somewhere ' Always good to see authorative sources being quoted, certainly helps contribute to reasoned debate.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

At least she reads, you just slag people off! It's a forum, not a debating society for goodness sakes.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: What would you like the US foreign policy to be in a perfect Hookian work?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Some mega-generalisations there as usual Bruce!

Do you think Iraq presents a bigger or smaller threat now than before Saddam was ousted and killed? What threat did he present (Directly) to the UK at the time of the 2nd Gulf War?

USA "Out-sourcing" Air-Power to NATO?? Have to ever been anywhere in the middle east or afghanistan? The US has 10 times air support than anyone else (added together) in both theatres.

In reply to dale1968: Paul Wolfowitz was on the radio last night bemoaning the fact that the west hadn't intervened earlier "to save lives and reduce the conditions for revenge" and raised the prospect of the creation a rump Alawi state in the North West as source of continual friction after a long civil war.

In a complicated situation, it's nearly impossible to understand the best course of action - but one thing's for sure; if Wolfowitz is clamouring for it, 10s of thousands will die unnecessarily.

In reply to MG:

I don't know what a "Hookian work" is exactly but guessing what you mean I think all countries should have a foreign policy which is respectful towards other countries, considers that the interests of these countries are on the same level as their own and that fundamentally should respect the sovereignty of other countries... as written in the UN charter to put it simply.

This would imply, for example, not interfering in their internal politics, not aiding or encouraging one party, and certainly not intervening militarily, providing arms to one side in a civil war or destabilising countries in order to draw profit from a change of government or to colonise them.

Hardly an original viewpoint until recent years.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Sorry I meant "world" of course - phones!

I don't have a major problem with that viewpoint but it is rather hard to actually enact - I guess places like Japan and Switzerland come pretty close. It does imply, for example, standing idly by when events like the Rwanda massacres occur.

In reply to drunken monkey:


It presented an enormous threat to it's neighbours, as proven by the million deaths when Iraq attacked Iran and the fewer, but not negligible deaths cause by it's invasion of Kuwait. The regime was also responsible for numerous deaths internally. Having said that the total lack of policy to deal with the situation after the military intervention and the chaos that continues to this day makes one wonder if it was such a good idea to intervene... but this is hindsight.


Of course it does in reality but the PR spin during the Libyan invasion was that the bombing was done by NATO, not the USA. Clearly nonsense if you look at the facts but it's the way military intervention is portrayed today. In Yugoslavia it was already "NATO doing the bombing" in theory but you only have to look at what flag is flying over the nice new military base in Kososvo to know who was behind it all in reality. The USA uses NATO to manage its poodle states like France and Britain while presenting a more "acceptable" appearance. Idem for Libya, Gaddafi presented a danger for the Dollar so he had to go, and he did.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I'm noton about Iran-Iraq war era. That was when? 1980's? Iraq's military was absoultely destroyed after Gulf War 1, and presented very little threat to its neighbours IMO.

The Libyan invasion was covered by NATO aircraft. After the initial attacks (which involved US Aircraft) the vast majority of attacks were from UK and French aircraft. The US took a back seat, and mainly used surveillance aircraft, drones, and cruise missiles. It was the French that bombed Gaddafi's car.

Excuse my spelling!

In reply to MG:

I think outside intervention may be justifiable in extreme situations, but should really be exceptional, not standard practice. The problem has been made worse by the fall of the Soviet Union as whatever one thinks of the internal situation for the people living there they did provide a counter balance to the extraordinary military power of the USA which meant that such interventions were very rare.

I hope that the emergence of new powers such as India, Brazil, Russia, China and S America in general may challenge the USA's present overwhelming superiority... Syria may be a turning point, but this means the Syrians, of whatever views, are likely to suffer even more.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Oh dear, we've been down this road before and i shut you up that time to do i have to do it again?

In reply to dek:

I was kidding Dek but i should have remembered there are unfortunates like yourself on these forums that need to be taken by the hand.

In reply to Shona M:

Welcome back... but try not to get banned again in the first week

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Haha !Thanks Bruce and yeah i'm on a final warning so best behaviour from now on.

In reply to Shona M: Were you anti the USSR and China supplying weapons and military "advisors" throughout Africa in support of their political/resource ambitions, or is it only a problem if the great satan does it?

In reply to Shona M: Again? If you've ever shut me up it's through boredom at your totally cliched responses. 'I read somewhere...' for goodness sake. Worthy of a Daily Mail reader.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward)Nah, I don't agree, we can't remember where we get all of our information, and it doesn't make it less true. Once can always google to double check things.

Have nice afternoon arguing though. ()

http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/poetry/max-ehrmann.html

'As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons...'

In reply to Sir Chasm: doubt you will get a coherent reply...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


well aside from the proxy wars which were frequent and vicious.

In reply to dissonance:

Well, this was the Syrian regime's way. It tried to run Lebanon by proxy. And fight Israel by proxy. To do this is created a web of ethic, religious, and international alliances. What, for example, does it have in common with Russia and China except for a distrust of civil liberties and democracy?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

No i think you will find i've shut you up on practically every time we have disagreed,not through your 'boredom' but by proving you wrong,is your memory going?I can see what you are trying to do but as usual you fail.
I can't dig it out at the moment as i have pals doing a lot of building work in my flat but i'm pretty sure it came from the book - Blowback by Chalmers Johnston,who is an American expert on China and Japan

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Try to be a little more specific and i'll answer your question.

ps.Apologies to Dale68 if that isn't coherent enough for you petal.

In reply to MikeTS:

What!
Yeah what!
So Syria is the only country to fight by proxy eh ?
What is that?What are you tying to do?
What of the civil liberties of Palastinians to have a country that isn't being slowly and inexorably eaten away ?
Does your big brother the USA spread civil liberties and democracy everywhere it interferes?

In reply to Shona M: 'Does your big brother the USA spread civil liberties and democracy everywhere it interferes?'

Well, in recent years to my certain knowledge there have been election in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the US has definitely interfered, and also elections in Libya and Egypt, which have gone no one's 'way' as far as I can see.

Now, tell me somehwere that in recent years have had free and fair elections promoted by either Russia or China?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

First of all we'd have to think of countries where Russia and China have intervened in recent years... I can't, can you?

On the other hand your beloved "free world" has been saving people from themselves all over the place "in recent years".

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

After the murder of up to a million people in Afghanistan and Iraq the US has removed in the case of the Taliban an army of fanatical undemocratic militants that it created and in the case of Saddam a dictator they were very friendly with even ignoring his chemical attack on the Kurds in 1988 to arm and encourage him to start a war that would kill 100,000.
Egypt was under the rule of a US dictator who was toppled by the people who wanted democracy,so is that what they call a straw man?
In Libya the US were removing an old enemy,do they bomb Saudi,Bahrain or any of their other client states for being undemocratic?
What of South and Central America for starters and the fascists the US insisted upon unleashing on peoples who only wanted democracy?
I can give you dozens more.


I don't recall the Russians or Chinese murdering around a million people in recent times like the US have not to mention the numbers disabled,refugeed and lifes destroyed.I suspect those children,women and men would rather be alive.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>Depends what you mean by 'recent':
1979 - Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
1990's - Chechen wars (not a separate country but would like to be)

1959 - Chinese invasion of Tibet
1962 - Chinese border war with India
1974 - Chinese take Paracel islands from South Vietnam (remember our discussion about China's territorial claims in the South China Sea?)
1979 - Chinese invasion of Vietnam

Admittedly not on the scale of US overseas adventures and not all that recent but evidence that both Russia and China will intervene if their interests are threatened. Though you do have a point.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Chechnyans, Ukrainians, and Georgians would all disagree with that about Russia I'd suggest.

And China is making a nuisance of itself with Vietnam, Phillipines, and Taiwan. Not forgetting Tibet

In reply to drunken monkey:

Georgians!
Do you mean that murdering NATO gangster Saakashvili? Who ordered the cold bloodied murder of 2000 Russian civilians in South Ossetia?

Are the Chinese murdering a few hundred thousand Phillipinos like the Americans did or creating a war which would kill minimum 4 million Vietnamese with up to 3 million second and third descendants still affected by US chemical weapons as in agent orange?
Tibet was China competing with the country grabbing imperialists of the UK,France,Germany,Japan,Italy,Holland and the US before they grabbed it.That maniac Churchill who in expressing his admiration for Mussolini the Italian dictator after he invaded Ethiopia made it clear that the possession of colonies 'Was the measure of national greatness'.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

That should have been 1 million dead in US encouraged Iraqi invasion and subsequent war against Iran.

In reply to Shona M: Aye because Putin is a feckin saint aye!

In reply to Shona M:

You need to provide some evidence for all these figures you quote. Wikipedia is a good start. Otherwise, it is at the level of a 'a bloke works down the chip-shop told me'.

In reply to Pekkie:

All this coming from a person who thimks that workers in Germany haven't suffered pay cuts and a declining standard of living over the last 5 years!
What a patronising g-t.

In reply to Pekkie:

Which figure would you like the evidence for?

In reply to Shona M:
If you made coherent postings then it would be easier for all.

In reply to Pekkie:

Not recent in the way the question was posed and all, every one, disputes on China's borders or inside Russia. Whichever side is right, border disputes and internal problems are quite different to intervention on the other side of the planet in countries which are in no way part of the USA, NATO countries etc.

Another pointer would be to look at a world map and plot all the military bases of each side outside their frontiers. The USA is a clear winner, Britain has a few and France has quite a lot of troops in Africa and in their island colonies. Just compare this with Russia, China and the other emerging countries like Brazil... do they have any bases at all? At best the port facilities in Syria could count as one, but I don't know of any other. I'm always ready to be educated though.

PS. We could compare fleets and aircraft carriers too which are much like mobile bases... no doubt there that the USA is number one, or is there?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Russia has military bases in: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazahkstan, Kyrgystan, tajikistan, Ukraine and Syria.

China was actively seeking to establish a military base in Pakistan a few years ago, but dunno if thats happened. its also stepping up its exploits in the south china sea.

So, no - neither on the scale of the yanks, but Russia has a lot of troops deployed out of Russia. But generally around the fringes of its own borders.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: US navy has 11 Aircraft carriers. By far the most in the world. Think Russia have a few, but only 1 is in service. China have bought one off the Russians and doing it up, and are in the process of building their own.

China is spending shedloads on its Navy - In particular submarines.

In reply to drunken monkey:

Funny thing but I was sitting in the canteen today talking with a bloke that had just come back from a meeting in Beijing. He told me that one of the Chinese engineers he had been visiting had quite calmly predicted that there would be a war between Japan and China in the next few years.

In reply to drunken monkey:

In the days of the Soviet Union there were a lot more: http://www.rt.com/news/russian-military-bases-abroad/

"The Soviet Union used to have a wide military presence abroad, with bases in Cuba, Poland, Germany, Finland, Somalia, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Yemen, Egypt, Syria and Libya,"

..and in the interests of editorial balance..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases
http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases

Apparently the US has over 1000 overseas military bases.

In reply to Shona M:
You do insist on posting the biggest pile of SWP shite... But we are here to listen to even immature, sour auld Trots like Bruce and you. So carry on Mary Doll or whatever moniker you use nowadays, It's quite funny

In reply to dek:


I object this on two counts, not bad in seven words: she is not "auld" and I have certainly never even vaguely been attracted by Trotsky.... Wash your keyboard out with soap and water!


In reply to Eric9points:


Can't do any harm, can it?

In reply to Removed User:

I reply to someone "i read somewhere"....., and i am immediately accused by two people of "bloke down the chip shop told me", and you post a "bloke down the chip shop told me" and no one says a bloody thing!

I'm not getting at you Eric as its interesting to hear what you say i'm just making a point.

In reply to MikeTS:

Listen buster i got an 'A' for higher English so if you are incapable of reading what i have written on this post i suggest it's you who has a problem. althooooough ! I will admit that in my replies i use a distictive personal style which i see as using a little of my artistic flair.

In reply to dek:

No Dek its not shite and its not SWP it's the truth and nothing but the truth.

>But we are here to listen to even immature, sour auld Trots like Bruce and you. So carry on Mary Doll or whatever moniker you use nowadays, It's quite funny

Well i'm glad your having a nice time Dek and still carrying on with the same old worn out and thread bare patter,i would have expected more from someone as mature and yet as young as you.What age are you again?


I can't wait to hear what that murdering psychopath Clinton has to say next,you would think as belonging to a family of one of the worst mass murderers of recent times she wouldn't want to see anymore,but it doesn't work that way when it comes to American admins they thrive on it.

In reply to Shona M:

Your artistic flair is clearly your problem, since you understand the word coherent it seems

In reply to dale1968: Bruce & Shona V RoW is wearing abit thin now - how about getting back on topic all?

I'm buying this right now:

"What the U.S. should do is focus its efforts on maintaining international pressure and sanctions on al-Assad while preparing for a transition. It should disseminate credible information about the regime's atrocities. It should aggressively plan to bring the architects of Syria's well-documented massacres to face international justice. (It is far too late for an amnesty for al-Assad and his top aides, but lower-level officials should be offered a deadline to defect to avoid prosecution.)"

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinion/lynch-syria-assad/index.html

In reply to iksander:

Oh right,so you support the regime change that the US have been after all along then, fair enough,were you screaming for regime change in Turkey when Clintons friends and weapons were slaughtering children? How about in Haiti after thousands were murdered by the US tyrants(actually CIA ops)who ordered Aristide out because 67% of the people voted for him as their first democratically elected president INSPITE of US placed tyrants who BLED Haiti dry for 76 years, exporting all profits to guess where?

God bless the USA and its transnationals backed as always by its fascist dictators,tyrants and death squads.

In reply to Shona M:
Did you miss the part about getting back on 'topic'? Or are you always as nutty as squirrel shit?

In reply to dek:


She is basically just noise on the line, degrading the signal from people who can actually add something to any discussion. No matter, it probably won't take long for her to launch sufficient personal abuse in all directions to get banned again.

Meanwhile, on topic, it looks like things are about to get even nastier in Syria :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18994124

In reply to dek:

And what exactley do you contribute Dek ?

oh yeah absolutely ZERO as always!

Now you lay off the insults and so will i.

In reply to Simon4:

Any degradation of the one sided propaganda coming from you lot can only be healthy.

In reply to Shona M:

Lil Kim just got married....were you not invited?

In reply to Shona M: How would you deal with Syria? Please answer without digressing onto something not even remotely connected.

In reply to drunken monkey:

Yeah i'll answer that after you tell me why we didn't get or even ask for regime change when Turkey and the US were slaughtering 10's of thousands of Kurdish civilians or why we didn't scream for regime change and support for Saddam after the British and Americans murdered between 500,000 and 1 million mainly children in Iraq with sanctions.Or WHY Bush,Clinton,Kissinger and all the friggin rest are not on trial for war crimes against humanity but Assad should.

ANSWER !

In reply to Shona M: US slaughtering kurds?? You havering again? And we didnt murder Iraqi's with sanctions. Get a grip.

In reply to drunken monkey:

NATO member Turkey were given the green light by Clinton who supplied 80% of the Turkish weaponry,planes to bomb villages and other NATO countries were even giving the Turks military aid fror FREE whilst they were bombing and torturing their own people and commiting war crimes.Do you think the Turks would have done it without the ok from the White house?Seriously.

These people(mainly children) would have lived if we had halted the sanctions,we knew they were dying but we blocked a un resolution to keep it going ....yeah your wrong ,thats murder.

And if you don't believe me how about 70 members of the US congress who called it -

"Infanticide masquerading as policy".

So

ANSWER!

In reply to drunken monkey:

You 'Are' having a laff monkey?!

In reply to drunken monkey:

I wonder why NATO sorry Turkey didn't pump Bahrain with weapons,propaganda,safe havens etc when they were murdering and torturing 100's of pro democracy protesters.And why no regime change or war crimes?

In reply to Shona M:

Turkey,July 14,1999,the police break into the home of a Kurdish family and announce they want to take the two daughters-Medine ,14and her younger sister Devran-in for questioning."I headed for the bedroom to get dressed",said Devran later,"but Medine....went straight to the window and jumped."

Medine's mother explained:"My daughter,you see,preferred death to being tortured once again."

WP August 3 1999.p10.

In reply to Shona M:
Speaking of murder, I take it you will support a minute silence at tomorrows ceremony, for the Israeli athletes murdered by the Arab Palestinian terrorists at the Munich games?

In reply to dek:

Do you want to try a bit harder and stick to the topic Dek?

In reply to Shona M:
Innocents being murdered by Arab religious savages IS the topic you prefer to avoid.

In reply to dek:

like the army of CIA trained Pakistani or any other Muslim boys who were trained and indoctrinated in Islamic fundamentalism as well as terrorist activities by the CIA.Your beloved USA trained uneducated boys to be Islamic Jihadis that would go from Afghanistan to Bosnia,Algeria,Somalia,Chechneya and ultimately all over but in the eyes of the west to the twin towers.
The Israeli Socalist and anarchist movements stand strong as always,right is on their side.

In reply to Shona M:



I've met their members. All 3 of them

In reply to Shona M: I found the Iraqi sanctions very objectionable - especially as far as they indirectly affected medical and food supplies. I agree that Turkey's human rights record is bad. I have something sympathy with Ba'athism insofar as it in theory support arab pan-nationalism. But the al-Assads are not resistance fighters, they are just self-serving murderers. I'd rather see them go by diplomatic means than see Wolfowitz and his pals get their way again.

In reply to dek:

What you said seems to be a little bit sectarian or racist, I'm sure you didnt mean it to come accross like that but just thought I'd point it out.

From my point of view there are savages from all over the world, in every country and every religion who will murder people to try and achieve what they want. It gets done by militants (FARC, Tamil Tigers etc), terrorist groups (Al Quaida, Bat Ayin etc), state sponsered groups (Mossad, CIA etc) or just mental individuals (Brevik, McVeigh etc) so to defend either side in a particular case no matter what seems stupid to me. In Syria at the minute the government are commiting attrocities but so are the groups fighting against them, same thing happened in Libya and everywhere else during the Arab uprisings recently taking place.

I don't have a solution to this which is why I normally stay out of these conversations, although I do observe them because seeing people argue silly points is often funny. Yourself and Shona M are doing this right now with you aiming to ignore anything done by Isreal which might antagonise Palestinians to the point of fighting and Shona ignoring this arguement and instead focusing on her pet peeve of US Imperialism. My point is neither of you are even interested in trying to see the arguement from the other side so why bother? It will just become a shouting match (I guess the forum equivalent is just who posts the most often)

In reply to ajsteele: Do you think all groups are equal? Or do some groups mark themselves out as worse than others by the acts they commit?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I think most are equal in what they aim to do some are just more successful in their planning and attacks. I suppose where one might say Al Quaida are the worst because they commited the biggest single terrorist attrocity I don't think they are any worse or better than any other group with the same kind of ideology and aims, in my view they are simply better equipped to carry out their aims.

In reading what I think I realise it sounds a bit cold hearted to describe terrorism in this way but I try to look at things pragmatically and not emotionally as emotion tends to cloud judgement and lead to one sided arguements with no possibility of understanding the root causes of any conflict.

In reply to ajsteele: What does looking pragmatically at the situation in Syria tell you? Does understanding the root cause help with determining what, if anything, the UN/other countries should do?

In reply to ajsteele:

I know that shone can't ever be dissuaded from her opinion that us imperialists are behind all the terror and atrocities in the world, because the alternative, that there are evil nasty violent people in all camps directly undermines her vision of a future socialist utopia where everyone is nice to each other because there aren't any nasty capitalists around.

In reply to off-duty:


"It is of little use for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism, when the wolf remains of a different opinion".

Presumably all these nasty, violent people will have been eliminated or sent to labour camps in starving conditions, these same mass-murders or brutal labour camps being organised by those lovable, peaceful, high-minded types. But those will be "good" violent thugs, not the current "nasty" violent thugs.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I don't know unfortunately, otherwise I wouldn't be on here I'd be earning significantly more than I am now as the worlds greatest peace negotiator in war torn countries.

The only thing I do know is that no one knows the full story of what is happening and why, this is because the places we get our news are going to have some degree of bias in what they report, I suppose I could trawl through everything available on the internet and maybe come close to understanding the conflict but I don't really have the time to be honest.

However I'm willing to have a shot at a solution without the information I would really need to made an informed decision, so I would put UN peacekeepers on the ground in Syria as I imagine this would stop a lot of the violence and possibly therefore move some way towards talks occuring between the factions and then who knows what could happen, there could be a resolution or there might not be but it seems a good first step to take. If not then I would try to get an accurate guage of what the majority of Syrians want and back whichever side that is as afterall it is their country and they will be the one's who have to live with it. Thats not going to happen though is it?

In reply to Simon4: I'd like to add to the remarks of the prevous speaker but that would be becoming perilously close to cyber bullying and gang mentality, so I won't. But I agree.

Some people here could do with a good dose of George Orwell, and no I don't mean Animal Farm or 1984 - Homage to Catalonia and Selected Essays all have plenty to say to idealogues.

In reply to off-duty:

Thats the point I was trying to make, the sides are too entrenched to have a reasonable debate.

In reply to ajsteele: Which countries armies would you use as UN peacekeepers?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Why am I getting drawn into this? I suppose I would go with some country which doesn't have a history of antagonising Syria or Islam so Ireland maybe? Switzerland would be a good shout if they where up for it but given their policy I don't think they would. Theres not many options to be fair.

What would you do?

In reply to ajsteele: What have the Irish ever done to you?

My solution is to wring my hands at a great distance.

In reply to ajsteele: Switzerland and Ireland are both neutral so wouldn't get involved directly. If you are going to try and step in to conflicts then I struggle to see how you would do better than the UN, for all its faults.

In reply to dale1968:

Apart from all the usual political bickering going on here, our real concern today, surely, is that it seems quite likely that there will be a massacre at Aleppo tonight while the rest of the world's attention is on the opening of the Olympics?

In reply to MG:

Ireland already supply peacekeeping troops for the UN they were in Lebanon recently, possibly still are actually.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Yes...but. It is odd that goings on in Syria catch our attention while much worse things regularly occur elsewhere (e.g. Sudan, Congo). That something is reported and near(ish)by does seem to count for lot.

In reply to ajsteele: Which is fine, but won't satisfy the likes of Hooker and Shona.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Nothing I am Irish, I like your suggestion too

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: You're raising the same question, what should be done to prevent a massacre at Aleppo?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Well Orwell had the characteristic of being (as far as one can tell - "sincerity is important, if you can fake that, you can fake anything"), rigorously honest, and never burying an inconvenient truth, even if it was not consistent with "his" side. You might also add Arthur Koestler to this "The disbelieving of attrocities".

The previous poster seems at the same time rather over-optimistic and realistic, refering to the idea of sending in UN observers and believing that this would avert massacres. I thought this had been tried and been a conspicuous failure, even with "small" massacres in specific villages, let alone what may well be about to start in the large city of Aleppo. Those may have been Arab league monitors though, keeping track of the situation there is as hard as trying to remember the innumerable "Euro-rescue" summits, with the beneficial results being as meagre.

One obvious feature is that all sides in Syria, in addition to fighting pretty brutally, are quite media-sophisticated and able and willing to spin in ways that help their viewpoint, while concealing points that do not support it. There also seems to be quite a lot of communal tensions that have simmered for decades and can or are bursting into flame in the climate of uncertainty and chaos, just as they have done in Lebanon for a long time.

Hard to see a good or quick outcome to this one.

In reply to Sir Chasm: Watch it on a news channel?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Post to say "something" must be done?

In reply to MG:

They are a bit radical in the way they think about things but at the same time they have a point in there somewhere, US foreign policy (and most other western countries) does play a huge role in conflicts all over the world, generally they arm some militants and then fight them in about 10 - 20 years time. As the great Bill Hicks said about the news reports of the weapons Iraq had "Iraq: incredible weapons – incredible weapons." "How do you know that?" "Uh, well … we looked at the receipts. But as soon as that check clears, we're goin' in."

In reply to MG:

Ireland has a long tradition of sending its forces on UN peacekeeping missions (and more recently on EU missions such as in Chad, an op commanded by an Irish general). But as ever peacekeeping forces aren't much use when there is no peace to keep - see the first four or five years of Bosnia, or indeed the UN observer mission currently in Syria.

In reply to dek:

dek seems to like stringing pejorative words like savages to the word "Arab" in a way I've not seen him do with words like "Israeli", "Scottish" or "American". Black September were no doubt "savage" but from what I remember reading about them they weren't very religious. Having just looked it up on wiki for what its worth, the leader of the group appears to have had a christian father and a jewish mother - so maybe not quite the religious savage that dek had in mind?

In reply to Simon4:

I think there is a difference between observers and peacekeepers, peacekeeping troops are allowed to fire back if opened fire on so I would think putting some in the middle of target areas might put off the attacking forces. Both because they would have an organised army to fight against and also the knowledge that if they killed some UN peacekeepers they would be invaded pretty quickly by a much larger UN army.

But yeah it is over optimistic but I did just come up with it in a minute and didn't actually think it would work perfectly.

In reply to TobyA:

Yes but as UN forces, not Irish forces such as might occur with NATO (if they were members).

In reply to TobyA:
Pejorative?
The 'Savages' forcing a mother to nominate one of their children to be shot in the head i front of them.
You are digressing, as usual

In reply to MG: I might have missed your point, but when a member of NATO or a cooperating partner contributes forces of a NATO mission, they are "NATO forces" under NATO command, just like they are UN forces under UN command on a UN mission. In both cases these things are actually a bit more complex with national capitals still having some say even though they shouldn't really.

BTW, Ireland (like lots of other PfP nations and other partners) does contribute forces to NATO missions, and put them under NATO command. Ireland has some personnel in ISAF (Afghanistan) currently I think, or at least they have done in the recent past.

In reply to dek:


I don't think that happened at Munich dek. Your point isn't that Black September were savage, you'll probably not get much argument on that, but that Arabs are savages, because that is always your point.

In reply to ajsteele:


There's a long an ignoble history of exactly that NOT happening in past UN peacekeeping missions. Near the start of the Rwandan genocide, 10 Belgian UN peacekeepers were killed and it stopped the UN from doing anything rather than made them do something. Similar in Bosnia etc.

In reply to TobyA: OK, I may have it wrong.

In reply to ajsteele:


Neither have a very happy record, witness Bosnia, Srebreniza and the DutchBat.

UN troops in that situation tend to be :

1) less well-armed than the protagonists
2) less brutal, ruthless and motivated to start/contain agression
3) completely hamstrung by unworkable rules-of-engagement
4) too dispersed and in too small numbers to be effective
5) either turn into targets themselves, or else have to take sides with one of the warring factions to survive


There is no chance whatever that a larger army than the loyal part of the Syrian army will be sent in, if it were it would either spend all its time trying to protect itself or joining one side or the other. The largest army in the area by far is the Turkish one, and to encourage that to get more involved than it is already is a complete Pandora's box.

In reply to Gordon

Absolutely right, and about the only thing that really matters here! Assad I'm sure will indulge in more savage behaviour when he thinks the worlds attention is elsewhere for a few days.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I think you've got to be a bit careful about the reporting of all this. The media seem to be very willing to relay to us any news from the anti Assad side with little or no editorial comment while practically ignoring what the Syrian Government says. Seems strange to me.

The latest claims that there will be a massacre in Allepo are, as far as I can see, being made by the rebels who have taken over Allepo by force of arms. It seems to me entirely predictable that the Governmant army is going to counter attack and people will get killed. The fault will not lie entirely with the Syrian Government forces. How much of the fault will lie with them will depend upon how much warning they have given to civilians to get out of Allepo (has that been reported at all?)and how they conduct themselves when they do attack. Bear in mind that the anti Government forces will be trying to kill as many Government soldiers as they can. In fact this may be an El Alamein type trap for all we know.

In reply to TobyA & Simon4:

I hadn't realised how poor a record they actually have in these situations.

In reply to TobyA:
Not "always" but often enough. The casual slaughter, especially recently merits the title of savages. Is it just your inner Guardianista trying to Accuse me of being pejorative. Why would that really concern you? Now we see both sides of that sectarian divide indulge in this bloody savagery,and nearly 18 months later nothing from the Impotent UN to stop the killing. Just more handwringing, and hot air from the usual talking heads.

In reply to ajsteele:


Not entirely their fault.

They (the peacekeepers), are frequently from third world countries, poorly equiped and briefed, in a conflict that is at best tangential to their societies and in conflicts that are often more or less unsolvable, as well as being byzantinely complex with no clear "goodies" or "baddies" (though in this case, personally I think the Assad regime is certainly pretty bad, which does not, conversely, guarantee that their opponents are "good").

Realistically there is neither the capability nor the willingness from any quarter to intervene in Syria in addequate strength(except, just possibly, from Turkey, and then only next to their own border). However it plays itself out, it will, though the Russians will keep sending arms for as long as they can, for various reasons including financial and influence.

Most countries/powers will follow the solution outlined above by Sir Chasm above, possibly more volubly.

In reply to dek:

Do you read the Jerusalem Post by any chance?

Arabs are "often enough" savages? I would say probably no more than any other group of people to be honest and I think you are showing a pretty despicable side to yourself in this thread.

Would you say its savage to block aid going into an area that desperately needs it because of an oppressive force? How about attacking a convoy of aid ships and killing some of the aid workers?

In reply to ajsteele:
Only occasionally, not as often as the Guardian.
Why, Are you a Jew hater?
Stopping weapons and rockets being smuggled...Why wouldn't they? Do you celebrate when Arabs attack and kill Jews? What is your 'point' really?

In reply to dek:

Can a person be pejorative? I was thinking more "prejudiced" or "racist".


It doesn't particularly but it does colour everything you say on this issue, even when otherwise you are making completely fair points - like agreeing with Gordon about the possibility that the Assad regime might use the media attention on the Olympics to try and crush its opponents (exactly what Russia did when attacking Georgia 4 years ago).

In reply to dek:

That explains it, most of the readership hates all Arabs and seems to want to deport or kill them.

No I don't hate anyone really, although someone at the buritto shop at lunch did piss me off a bit (no idea about his religion though).

The flotilla was bringing in humanitarian aid and some building materials not weapons, and the commandoes opened fire before even landing on the boat so thay were not even interested in finding out what was on board anyway just killing those trying to help the residents of Gaza.

My point is mainly that you only want to see the Arabs as evil pure and simple which is racist. It is in fact the same thing as those Arab terrorists who hate all Jews so in effect you are the same as them ideologically just from the opposite side if that makes sense.

You would do well to take a step back and read into why the Palestinians etc aren't big fans of Israel it might open your eyes a bit to the fact that there are two sides to the story and it isn't always Israel = good, Arabs = bad. I'm in no way saying its the other way round either just that there is good and bad on both sides.

In reply to ajsteel and sell: When you two talk about Arabs do you really want to say Muslims? I'm just curious whether you're both a bit racisty or whether it's a religious thing.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I'm just saying Arabs because that's what dek has been using but I suspect he means Muslims. It does cloud wether or not it is racist or sectarian though not that it really matters which prejudice it is.

In the context of the wider discussion though Arab would be the correct term as I'm sure not everyone involved the "Arab spring" is muslim. I suppose for Syria I could say Syrian's but I havent really talked about that other than when you asked me for a suggestion of what I would do to resolve that conflict.

I'm curious though on why you think I'm racist? Maybe I am as I didn't even think I was giving off that vibe but if you think I am there must be something in it...my whole life view is now in tatters!

In reply to ajsteele:
Are you seriously trying to lecture us on Arab v Jew hatred?For starters, take your own advice and read the Hamas charter, then report back.

In reply to ajsteele: I don't know, it was probably dragging Israel/Jerusalem post into the thread. Don't worry about it, we're all a bit racist really.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

You could also have said I must not like mexicans because I mentioned getting angry in a buritto bar in one of the posts.

You are right though in that deep down everybody probably has a bit of mistrust of people who look or act very differently from themselves.

Anyway I'm getting dragged into the stupid arguements that I came in to point out so I'm not going to bother with any more posts on this subject as its going to go nowhere.

Have a good weekend everyone whatever you are doing, personally I'll be trying to climb somewhere that it isn't raining in Northern Ireland this weekend, which might be more of a challenge than finding a resolution to the Syria situation.

In reply to iksander:

But the Turkish governments who ethnically cleansed 3,500 villages before destroying them and slaughtering 10's of thousands of people are NOT self-serving murderers ?
Are you saying if Assad doesn't go then the NATO murderers should remove him?

In reply to Simon4:


Yeah imperialist capitalist wolves and vultures murdering all who disagree,whilst invading,robbing,starving,expoiting any people who want equal rights.


Would that be the British gulags in Kenya or the starvation of millions in India whilst we took their crops?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Neither you your wee pal or any number of you are capable of bullying me but give it your best shot princess.

Homage to Catalonia is a favourite book of mine another is Unpeople:Britain's secret human rights abuses- M.Curtis.

In reply to TobyA:


NO,no and eh ...no!

So Russia attacked Georgia under the cover of the Olympics?
Is that what the Western propagandists are saying now?

In reality the Georgians launched an offensive and military bombardment that murdered 2,000 Russian civilians on the 8.8.08 ,the same day of the opening ceremony for the Beijing Olympic games. So it was the NATO mafian Saakashvili after getting his orders from condoleeza Rice before she boarded her plane back to the USA, who dictated when his murderous slaughter and aggression would begin and of course the world leaders being distracted in Beijing would be the perfect cover.

But the good ol Russian bear was having none of that!

In reply to Shona M: Is it impossible to criticise al-Assad before first listing all the atrocitIes ever committed by anyone else?
,
My stance is and always has been against outside military intervention in Syria. Maybe you could read people's posts before jumping to conclusions?

In reply to Shona M:

Well, in true Olympic spirit you win the Gold for totally missing the point of the posts you replied to here.
Are we playing "Flower of Scotland" or "the Red flag" when you collect your medal?

In reply to dale1968: bit late for all the other historical perspectives,wheres this going to end? seems like in Alleppo in another massacre.
Does it really matter if you stand on the left or right of politics, it's sad, we are lucky, we can post our views and go out climbing and enjoy life where as in Syria hanging on to life will be an achievement..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19025955

In reply to iksander:
The US war criminals want regime change in Syria,its been one of the many who have been on its list for years,everyone knows this.
Islamic Terrorists supported by Turkey's war criminals,Saudi Arabia and Quatar(How ironic that these two are supporting a so called fight for democracy)are trying to remove one of the most secular states in the region where women enjoy freedoms that those in Saudi Arabia can only dream of.
The PR arm of NATO which is the western media corporations are doing a fine job in completely demonising Assad's secularism whilst making the Islamic terrorists out to be some sort of heros.
The west have a clear history of using the CIA army of Wahabist Islamic extremists to attack any country that wont follow the Washington consensus or do what the Americans and their multinationals want them to.
besides, the USA war industry needs to create conflicts and tensions to sell ever more of its weapons.

In reply to off-duty:

Don't be so niave i am well aware of the early problems faced by the Bolsheviks in fact i'll bet i know a damn site more about Russian history than you do!

Oh and no the "Internationale",would be my choice.

In reply to Shona M:
>

I am sure you do. None of which is actually relevant to the specific posts to which you are replying.



Cool. I'll cue it up, it looks like no-one else can miss the point with anywhere near your ability.

In reply to Shona M: The USA are shitting it about regime change, as they worry more about who will take over. AQ Influence in country etc.

If the yanks wanted regime change, Syria would have had the shit bombed out of it by now.

In reply to drunken monkey:

The US wont bomb it because and ONLY because the Chinese and Russians wont be caught out the way they were when the US backstabbed them by removing Gaddafi.
I'm surprised you say that DM as Clinton and that wee F&=% Hague would love to bomb Syria,and they certainly wont be bothered about AQ,trust me, they worked hand in hand with them in Libya and will be organising them on the ground covertly in Syria to.I wonder how many special forces the US have in and around Syria directing and giving intelligence.

In reply to Shona M:


As an ex-leftist, it look to me really weird on the radical left in this day and age.

The regimes you support, and hence your heroes, are secular murderers (like Assad and Gadaffi) and religious fanatics (like Hezbullah and the mullahs of Iran)

Weird. Really weird. Weren't there once upon a time some principles, like freedom, self determination, women's equality? When did they disappear to be replaced by unequivocal support for anyone that opposed the the 'real' enemies, the USA and Israel?

In reply to Shona M:

Shona - do you write any of this stuff with straight face? You're trying to suggest the Assad regime is some sort of socialist, secular utopia because women don't need to cover their hair? In the 'good old days' before the war those freedoms didn't actually extend to not being arrested and tortured (with some accusations of sexual violence) if you disagreed with regime. Nowadays Syrian women don't have the freedom to not have the Syrian military shell their towns and villages or snipers shoot them for demonstrating against the regime. Whether you need to cover your hair could seem rather secondary to that.

Syria is and has been for a long time a rentier state, where closeness to the ruling family (which has become a defacto monarchy) assures you fabulous wealth built on the exploitation of the wider working and peasant classes. So I find it odd that you would support such enemies of the Syrian people: feudal style monarchs happy to ruthlessly kill the proles when the proles are brave and desperate enough to demand a more equitable distributions of the resources of production. And the best you've got is that Assad lets you have your hair uncovered? I imagine anyone living in Highgate will be hearing a spinning noise coming from the cemetery right now.

In reply to MikeTS:


It's like the worst aspects of football sectarianism (Glasgow being a particularly clear example of this). The football doesn't matter, your own team doesn't really matter, just hating the other team matters.

You wonder why its so difficult for people to say the Syrian govt. are horrible, but some communities that support them in Syria are genuinely scared about what might replace them. The Syrian rebels have some people who want a secular and democratic future and others who are hardcore Jihadi nutters who want to be the Taliban. The countries that are supporting the rebels and the countries that supporting the government have their own selfish interests and the future of the Syrian people is not high on any of their lists. It's not that hard really is it?

In reply to Shona M: The USA really dont give a feck about Russia and China. They'll do what they want, and know that Russia and China "most likely" will do nothing.
Believe it or not Obama is not some kind of bloodthirsty yank, and is regarded as some kind of pussy within the states by the hawks. Unusually for a recent US president, he is wary of upsetting the Muslim world, and is hesitant to committing US troops into another conflict in an arab state.

If he committed the US military to the Libyan uprising, it would have been over in days.

As for Special forces......

In reply to MikeTS:


Ex-leftists... always the worst


Wow there!You are making some very big assumptions which bear no resemblance to reality.
Firstly Assad and Gaddafi were and are nasty pices of work when they wanted to be that is not even debatable but i have an admiration for there stand against the US empire and its British and NATO war criminals and fascists.
Secondly Hezbullah and the Iranian Mullahs are reactionary and non-progressive movements which i have never supported and never will.But i can see the sequence of historical events that has put them where they are quite clearly and it comes back to recent and older British and American imperialism.As an ex-leftie you will know what this means to us.


These principles as well as all the other noble ones like peace and equality continue to be the bedrock of the left radical or revolutionary,but if you look at things from a Marxist perspective as you will no doubt know,historical context is what dictates the world around us and is absolutely crucial in analyzing political movements.


As i said above many countries have been completely wrecked for generations by merciless tyrants that have been installed by first British and then American imperialism.The imperialists bled countries dry of their wealth and brought decades of terror and suppression to the exploited people.Now as you know from Marxism,dialectically this will inevitably through ever greater oppression and terror result in an uprising which under varing social conditions can take many forms to free the people of this foriegn imperialism and its chosen tyrant.Now in the case of Iran it took an extreme religious revolution to unite the people in order to kick out the US and UK imposed Shah.The Iranians had a secular state and democratic elections prior to the imperialists destroying and crushing that for thirty odd years to keep plundering their oil resourses.Lessons were learned... the hard way :- secularism did not prevent the foriegn invaders from robbing the country and terrorising and murdering its people on the contrary it probably contributed to this, by being too democratic and not strong enough so that was not the way to free the people.Their local Islamic culture would unite them just like liberation theology would in South and Central America.
I dont imagine i'll have to explain the other relative comparisons but people are driven to extremism by learning from terrible historical realities and events and the US fascists know this only to well,note the complete and utter terror inflicted apon the Chilians and how they were tortured from an open vibrant colourful land full of hope into a dark place of utter fear for decades.

In reply to TobyA:

Toby....Toby,Toby,Toby to say it is a relatively secular place in comparison to the people wanting to 'free it'.Is not the same as what you have purported me as suggesting,it doesn't bear any resembalance to what i said in the slightest.


I'm sure the Saudi Wahabis and assorted terrorists who are in large part fuelling this war have as much blame for this as the Syrians.


Good one! Although i do know you are using great exaggeration and even a little falsifacation for effect when you try to describe the social conditions of the Syrian working and peasant communities.Good try but it doesn't quite work as this is a foriegn intervention by Turkish war criminals,Saudi oppressers who haven't the faintest idea about democracy and the NATO war criminals of the US empire who want to impose regime change on a place that never did tow the line and upsets their allies in Israel.Using up to 10,000 Al Qaeda and Libyan Islamic terrorists who are always very useful ,this combined with Turkish havens,weapons and worldwide NATO media propaganda competely dominating the show as always.

In reply to drunken monkey:

That was the case pre-Obama certainly but its rather different now as i dont think the American public will stomach having the piss taken out of them by their government again like they were with the Iraq invasion.Even their insatiable appetite for foriegn invasions has been sated for a bit but that is no doubt only a temporary state of affairs.

He is walking a tightrope but much of what he says is bluster that doesn't happen,he made a speach years ago something about forging closer ties to the Muslim world and what happens..yeah we are all wondering and that violation of international law Guantanamo is the last time i looked still open for business.

bit longer than that but i take your point.
Yes.

In reply to Shona M:

So you really think Syrians have nothing to do with this? Who went out unarmed on those first demonstrations asking for political reform over a year ago? Who was it who got arrested in the tens of thousands and tortured inside Syrian prisons? Were all of those "Turks, Saudis, al Qaeda
and Libyan islamic terrorists"? Did they bring a long their children to get shot and shelled by the Syrian army? Do you think that 80% or so of Syrians are happy with the Assad family monarchy?

You pick some very strange allies for a "leftist" - I wouldn't expect too much solidarity from the striking Syrian workers attacked and even murdered by their own government after you continue to support their oppressors. But hey ho, King Assad doesn't like the yanks, so he must be good eh?

"Until 2011, workers generally did not dare exercise the right to strike strike The most common form of industrial action, a strike is a concerted stoppage of work by employees for a limited period of time. Can assume a wide variety of forms.

See general strike, intermittent strike, rotating strike, sit-down strike, sympathy strike, wildcat strike , given the potential heavy penalties and repression of any activity deemed to be critical of the government. Fear of reprisals meant response to the calls for general strikes during the year was mixed, with a greater turnout in cities considered to be pro-democracy strongholds than in the capital Damascus.

However 2011 was marked by a series of general strikes, which started in March, and which formed a major part of the protests against the repression of fundamental rights and the lack of decent jobs and prospects for the future. Opposition protestors called nationwide general strikes for 18 May, 23 June and 11 December. In addition, there were general strikes in the city of Hama between 3 and 5 June and in the cities of Homs and Hama on 7 July. The majority of these strikes, calling for an end to repression were met with violence, injury and often killings."

http://survey.ituc-csi.org/Syria.html?lang=en#tabs-4

In reply to TobyA:

On the contrary at the outset Syrians were demonstrating albeit in very small numbers for an end to the old emergency laws and against corruption. After a month or so of escalating demos and dozens of protesters killed by Syrian government forces who, some say were doing it for their own protection as protesters stormed government buildings and set fire to them.Assad resigned his goverment and put about an end to the old emergency law,it then spiralled out of control with many killings on both sides,so yes a portion of the Syrian people did get out and demonstrate en masse eventually.
Assad has made significant changes starting with an election open to any political parties in 2011 which was delayed til a few months ago although the president still has supreme power these changes represent a huge step forward from a country that has stayed the same for near 50 years.
Al Quaeda have committed over 90 attacks against the Government security forces who have used brutal repression against peaceful demonstrations of that there is no question and what is also not in any doubt,is that the exact same measures are used and have been used by the other regional belligerents in all of this(when they have cracked down on their own internal protesters) who are making a dreadful situation much worse and prolonging the suffering of the Syrian people to come to a peaceful solution.
From a Marxist perspective you could see this purely as a workers uprising against a state which is not representative of the workers or run by them.The essence of which is partly true and reforms were inevitable and necessary before it spiralled out of control but then it did.And as i spoke of before that's when the foriegn tyrants and imperialists see their opportunity and flood the place with their foriegn invaders which is a situation that NO true Marxist would ever agree to.

In reply to Shona M:


Have you got any evidence of that at all, regardless of how you spell it? And how can you claim the protests were "very small numbers"?

In reply to Shona M:



.> Secondly Hezbullah and the Iranian Mullahs are reactionary and non-progressive movements which i have never supported and never will. BUT i can see the sequence of historical events that has put them where they are quite clearly

You will see that I have put your buts in capital letters. The reason is that if you want to decode what people really really mean, you ignore everything before the BUT.

This for makes interesting reading!

Shouldn't you be supporting Al Quaeda for their principled stand against fascism and imperialism as represented by the USA?

In reply to MikeTS and Toby A :

Will you never get over saying anyone who is against bombing a country into submission means they support the regime of that country?

Reality isn't the black and white world you attempt to paint.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: 'Reality isn't the black and white world you attempt to paint. '

Except for the undeniable 'fact' that all the evils of the world spring from US capitalism.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


a) No one is bombing Syria into submission and I'm not sure who you think is for that, but b) Shona actually admitted that both the Syrian and Libyan regimes were/are human rights abuser but still "i have an admiration for there stand against the US empire and its British and NATO war criminals and fascists." If that's not supporting them (despite knowing of their crimes), I'm not what is. You yourself have continually minimised the human rights abuses committed by Ghaddafi and praised the society he ruled over for being more equal, richer etc. than other countries in that region. I suspect you probably felt similar about East Germany when you were younger?


This is a bizarre claim, as black and white is all you seem to be able to deal with. For you NATO = fascist murderers controlled by Yankees etc. rather than 28 different countries all with their different opinions, interests and attempts to balance their alliances. The Syrian opposition = al Qaeda/Islamist head choppers; rather than a huge range of groups ranging from jihadi nutters to completely secular local defence groups that even have alawi members. And so on.

In reply to TobyA:

What a marvellous reply! It's funny really, clearly you are able to read and follow events quite closely and yet you seem quite incapable of escaping the use of sterile stereotyping - we must all fit in little boxes of your own (or someone else's) conception! You once called me a "tankie", not something I had heard of before and now you want to see me as an unconditional fan of E Germany! That there were positive aspects to the socialist regime there is absolutely beyond your capacity of comprehension, apparently, and anyone who might suggest there were is to be categorised as a hard-line Stalinist, every ready to sell the world into red slavery.

For Libya, Syria and other regimes in the world, which grew from notions of national independence and a reaction to colonialism, you refuse to even consider whether they may have played a positive role in historical terms and when compared to other imperfect regimes have positive aspects... I still can't decide if you really are so "primary" in your judgements or are simply pretending to be? Are you a genuine simplist or a propagandist?

In reply to MikeTS:

My objection to the US fascist empire or indeed my Socialist sympathies are no big secrets waiting to be unravelled Mike.

In reply to TobyA:

I suppose you said the same before the NATO murderers started bombing the poor Libyans to,do you really believe Clinton doesn't want to use NATO air power in Syria?


Turkey have committed much worse human right abuses and Saudi Arabia dont even let things get that far before they shoot,torture and kill ALL dissenters.As for NATO and the war criminals of the USA well i dont think i even have to mention their many atrocities,so to make a comparison between Libya/Syria and all of these aggressors who get off completely and utterly scot free and are in fact praised so much that they are encouraged to fuel and indeed kill the people of another soveriegn nation as in Libya and Syria is ludicrious.


What of our human rights abuses in Iraq,Afghanistan,Kosovo,Serbia to name a few Toby ?
what of them?
Where are our leaders and armed forces who committed
them...lying in a ditch?
Bullet through the neck ?
In the Hague perhaps?
Hanging from lamposts?
Tortured to death ?Where are they?
I dont hear you screaming about those committed by our "society".


Are you even questioning that NATO are controlled by the evil empire?
You think they are all equal eh Toby ? Luxembourg,Lithuania..Iceland and the greatest superpower the world has ever known.


As i said before Syrians began small demos to get reforms and reforms were made after some very brutal government clampdowns(see exact Saudi and Turkish comparisons) .This has all changed now as NATO and Saudi interference and opportunism to get rid of a leader allied to the Great Russian bear who supported Lebanese resistance is the real reason for the escalation.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

This is ironic, considering I'm a essentially a social democrat living in one of the still over-all social democratic countries in Europe. Maybe not compared to France, but compared to the UK I see the positive aspects and outcomes of socialism daily (all though anyone with an ounce of historical awareness will see the positive aspects of socialism in the UK daily as well - after all we had the dancing NHS beds in opening ceremony!).

You also live in a former imperial state (indeed one that doesn't always deal easily with the 'former-' bit) whilst I live in post-colonial state, so I suspect I'm just as aware of the value people place on nationalism and independence.

In reply to Shona M:

Now you're surely just being silly aren't you? You are calling invading and occupying a country "supporting resistance"? Did the US just support the Afghan resistance in 2001?

In reply to dale1968: So Kofi Annan has done something useful and resigned to draw attention to the plight of the majority in Syria. Shame the FSA executed the al-Berri shabhia, not only was it an ugly gratuitous act - but a counter productive one too, no shabiha will even consider surrendering now.

In reply to iksander:

I don't imagine they were under any illusions of their likely fate if captured anyway. Seems incredible that someone who was presumably associated with the FSA would post such a video on the internet.

Anyway, I guess it will dispel any illusions anyone had that those opposed to Assad are angels.

In reply to Removed User:


I'm not sure there were many people under that illusion.

Actually there are probably a very wide range of groups opposed to him, for quite a variety of motives, similarly the regime supporters will be pretty varied in their reasoning. Quite a lot of the rationale appears to be sectarian, on both sides. With Syria being so pivotal in such a volatile region, the risks are very great, while almost all the neighbours have pretty murky agendas.

Unfortunately it seems to be turning into a full-on civil war, which is always brutal. Surrounding countries like Jordan and Turkey are starting to get significant numbers of refugees.

In reply to Simon4: Saw an interesting report that FSA are getting training in Turkey, quite probably at the USAF base at Incirlik

In reply to iksander: don't seem to use it if there getting trained..

In reply to iksander:

Was it this report: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/turkey-denies-role-in-training-s...

"The Free Syrian Army officers were wearing military uniform and we didn't know them from before," said one activist. "They were with Turkish gendarmes. The officers asked the heads of families for names of young men to go to Adana for training."

The young men were told they would be trained on a Turkish military base near Adana, about 100km from the Syrian border and close to Incirlik, a joint Turkish and US air force base. Turkey has denied it is preparing for overt military support to the FSA."

If so, then it's not *at* the US air base but *near* the US air base.

Or was it this interview with a woman who joined the FSA and received some training at the Turkish base at Adana (mentioned independently in the previous report) with some input from the Turkish army but received the bulk of her training inside Syria from the FSA?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19117907

Or is it this one which states that the US Government has now decided to give aid to the FSA reportedly to make sure that Al Qaida don't gain influence with the FSA?

http://www.worldnewstribune.com/2012/08/03/obama-lifts-ban-on-aid-to-syrian...

Adana isn't far from the Syrian border by the way: http://www.turkeytravelplanner.com/Maps/TouristicMap.html

Seems like it's a bit of tourist destination as well.

In reply to Removed User: I would expect that the most involved regional powers are indeed Turkey, but also Iran.

This has a lot to do with an ancient Muslim schism, in that Turkey is predominantly Sunni and Turkic, while Iran is Shia and Persian. Historically there is considerable Sunni/Shia conflict, also Arab/Persian wars have a very long history.

Syria is a state with a majority Sunni population, ruled by a dynasty that is a sort of Shia. It also has various other minority communities, many of whom prefer the devil they know (the Assad Alawite dynasty), to the devil they don't, i.e. a predominantly Sunni government of unknown character and attitude toward minorities.

No doubt various tribal influences in different places as well. External powers like Russia and the USA are probably trying to protect their position, but are almost certainly very nervous and awaiting events, rather than pulling hidden strings to manipulate them.

In reply to Simon4:


Yes, I hope for the sake of the people of Syria that this doesn't turn into another old fashioned proxy war between the US and Russia as happened in Lebanon in the late 70s.

In reply to Removed User:


Adana is further than it looks to the Syrian border. It is definately not a tourist destination, not by any strecth of the imagination. The only reason most people visit it is because it is convienent for the Aladaglar mountain range, or to try the delicious mouth burning Adana kebab. The only other 'tourists' are from the nearby Incirlik Air Base.

There is climbing nearby though,http://www.myturkishadventure.com/adana.html

In reply to Big Steve:

Fair enough.

Are you living in Turkey just now?

If so, what's the Turkish view of what's going down in Syria at the moment?

In reply to Removed User: Im staying at my parents house in england at the moment,its too hot for me!

My wife is in Turkey and I know she and her friends are very worried. Her two younger brothers are in their twenties and have only avoided national service due to their student status. If it goes of big time, they will get their papers. The Turkish prime minister has been spoiling for a war for a while, Turkey were very close to war with Syria just before christmas. Nobody wants a war, but there is a lot of outside influence in Turkey. Many Turks have a dislike for the Kurds that I have never been able to understand, and the PKK are hated by nearly all so its not really suprising Turkey are massing their forces near the border as PKK have taken control of border towns. Its given Erdogan the excuse he needs.

I avoid discussing politics with most Turks, it saves a lot of trouble and arguments. Even my own wife shouts at me and gestures wildly if I disagree.

In reply to Big Steve: That's an interesting perspective. This report suggest that Damascus has colluded with the PKK to keep the FSA out of the border area http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0804/1224321449391.html

In reply to iksander: This is a very interesting link, I do not know if it has already been posted so apolgies if it has. I do not know how much is true and how much is peculation so make up your own minds:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32166&utm_sou...

There have been some very large demonstrations in Antakya (a large town very near the Syrian border) in support of Assad, so I do not know what to believe. Erdogan is a maniac though and is becoming increasingly like a dictator in Turkey. He is trying to steer Turkey towards Sharia law (and making himself very very rich along the way)

In reply to iksander: I'm not sure how accurate that article is, but it does make the alphabet soup of Kurdish parties and the complicated mix of loyalties and calculations of opportunity going on clearer, for the Kurds but also for other sectarian and religious groups.

It really is a mess, and likely to get worse.

In reply to Simon4: Syria Prime Minister Riad Hijab defects, I wonder how this will Influence internal politics