Syria: will the West attack?
- This topic has 366 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A couple of days ago, by accident, I saw most of a debate about Syria on a BBC3 programe called Free Speech. I was encouraged by what I heard from the audience and a couple of panel members.The panel consisted of Damian Green (Tory mp and minister for Policing and Criminal Justice), Mehdi Hasan (Political Editor of the UK Huffington Post), Shami Chakrabarti (Director of Liberty), Milo Yiannopoulos ("entrepreneur" and Editor in chief of online magazine, The Kernel) and Seema Malhotra (Labour mp). The audience were made up of 150 16 to 25 year olds, as the blurb points out.One audience member asked why no humanitarian military intervention takes place in African countries blighted by brutal wars and dictators, the same person suspected the Syria issue was about financial interests. The male host diverted that question away from the panel, but it was a question the two Tory warmongers on the panel would not have been able to answer. Another question as to why Israel is allowed to use white phosphorous bombs in Palestine, saw no answers from the right wingers.An Afghan audience member made a good point about Assad's chemical weapons being supplied by western sources, and highlighting the lack of attention being paid to the American backed Egyptian military dictatorship, in it's routine abuse of civilians. Again the two right wing warmongers stayed silent.Mehdi Hasan made some insightful points, one in particular aimed at, Damian Green, as a rebuttal to Greens mantra about chemical weapons being illegal. Mehdi asked why the Tory government of 1988 turned a blind eye to Saddam Hussein's use of chemical agents against his own people and Iran. Can anyone guess what Green's answer was?The show has a poll rating system based on support for the panelists arguments, and unsurprisingly Green and Yiannopoulos scored low in the ratings. Both supported military intervention, but neither had explanation as to how it would be of benefit, nor any post attack plans.Check it out. It was a pleasant change to see some intelligence being allowed a voice on such a show, intelligence that had the warmongers on the ropes and lost for words. Very surprised to see it coming from the BBC.http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b039sn21/Free_Speech_Series_2_Syria_Crisis_Free_Speech_Special/
A very interesting interview with a Syrian anarchist here.http://truth-out.org/news/item/18617-syrian-anarchist-challenges-the-rebel-regime-binary-view-of-resistance "the US wants "Assadism without Assad." They want the regime without the figure of Assad, just like what they got in Egypt, when Mubarak stepped down but the "deep state" of the military remained… ….The left has been very hostile to the Syrian uprising, treating the worst elements of anti-regime activity as if they are the only elements of it, and accepting regime narratives at face value. What I’d ask people to do is to help set that record straight and show that there are elements of the Syrian uprising that are worth supporting. Help break that harmful binary that the decision is between Assad or Al Qaeda, or Assad and US imperialism…."
alanjjohnstone wrote:A very interesting interview with a Syrian anarchist here.http://truth-out.org/news/item/18617-syrian-anarchist-challenges-the-rebel-regime-binary-view-of-resistance"….The left has been very hostile to the Syrian uprising, …."Has it? It would have been helpful if he has defined what he means by "the left" and/or given some examples. As far as I can see, on the contrary, most of "the left" are very enthusiastically (and very naively) in favour of the rebels. See, for instance:http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/msg22091.htmlThey love taking sides in wars, even proxy ones, instead of the socialist position that no war is worth the shedding of a single drop of working-class blood.
Medialens has several posters who take the side of Assad purportedly because they were critiquing the mainstream news narrative but they ended up offering apologies for his acts of atrocity. They failed to apply the same critera they demand of the western media from the Assadists. The latest is their acceptance of two freelance journalists reporting that some locals blamed the terrorists for the chemical attack and that it resulted from inexpertise in handling such weaponry supplied by Saudi . Perhaps it is true but where was the evidence except hearsay relayed third hand. The hard evidence was supplies supposedly found by Syrian troops but where is the chain of evidence that they demanded of the West's possession of evidence or proof that they were actually used and not simply stored. . A plague on both houses is indeed an impossibility for some people. And, of course, everything is a conspiracy. Our position is clear…So what if one side or another used chemical weapons. The manner of dying is irrelevant. Neither usurping Assad or defending Syrian "sovereignty" is worth innocent workers blood. Well aware that we cannot influence events, all we can do, as the interview suggests is plod away with debunking the commonly held "truths" that one side has right on its side. In a way it may be the same as in the Spanish Civil War, regardless on intent, it degenerated from the possibility of the anarchist collectives protected by CNT militias to NKVD Stalinist execution squads running the show. Too many foreign interventionists (and pretend non-interventionists) taking control of the situation.
SocialistPunk wrote:Mehdi Hasan made some insightful points, one in particular aimed at, Damian Green, as a rebuttal to Green's mantra about chemical weapons being illegal. Mehdi asked why the Tory government of 1988 turned a blind eye to Saddam Hussein's use of chemical agents against his own people and Iran. Can anyone guess what Green's answer was?What was it? That that was then, but now is now? Can't have been that the West was supporting Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, can it?
ALB wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Mehdi Hasan made some insightful points, one in particular aimed at, Damian Green, as a rebuttal to Green's mantra about chemical weapons being illegal. Mehdi asked why the Tory government of 1988 turned a blind eye to Saddam Hussein's use of chemical agents against his own people and Iran. Can anyone guess what Green's answer was?What was it? That that was then, but now is now? Can't have been that the West was supporting Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, can it?
None of those ALB.Green said nothing, just shook his head in the way politicians so often do when they've been caught out.
If Assad loses CNN reported back in 2012 that the Pentagon estimated 75,000 troops would be required to secure Syria's chemical weapon depots to ensure they did not fall into terrorist hands. Obama/Cameron/Hollande promise no boots on the ground so can we assume then that it will be Saudi troops, already used to prop up the Bahrain Sunni dictatorship against its Shi'ite democratic rebels. Or perhaps Turkish, and Janet will no doubt inform us of the risks that entails for Turkey's own stability.
I challenge anyone to tell me when Cameron and Hague announced that only the Syrian government had the capability of launching the sarin chemical attack that news reporters reminded viewers of its use of this substance by the terrorist group the Aum cult attack of 1995 in Tokyo.
If Obama bombs its the beginning of the End Days, i tell you, the start of the Rapture…Armageddon…It's in the Bible… One in four Americans in a survey suspect that Barack Obama might be the antichrist. But it could be Assad according to here http://www.isawthelightministries.com/antichrist.htmlIsaiah 17 ‘Look, Damascus will disappear! It will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted. Sheep will graze in the streets and lie down unafraid. There will be no one to chase them away. The fortified cities of Israel will also be destroyed, and the power of Damascus will end. The few left in Aram will share the fate of Israel’s departed glory,’ says the Lord Almighty.” Isaiah 17:1-3 (NLT)…its the end of the world, i tell you…repent …repent your sins, you materialist non-believers,
This is part of what one Hurriyet Daily News reporter has to say today (basically an opposition paper):"Speaking of a decrease in support for a pointless battle in Syria, the desperate wait is particularly painful for Turkey and its senior officials, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, since they all see losing more time against the Syrian “dictator” as a setback, or even an insult, in their aggressive domestic and neo-Ottomanist regional policies. Even while the main Western supporters of war have been keeping a low-profile over diving into a conflict amid the reluctance of the United Nations, Turkish officials have been bold enough to publicly lobby for a battle, as if they are blinded to a potential backlash from Syria.The only reasonable explanation for Turkey’s high spirit for a war would be that it has already been pulled into the Syrian quagmire and has long been suffering from the spillover. However, this is not the conclusion Turkish officials would agree on despite the growing reports of casualties in the south and southeast of Turkey."Kilicdaroglu, the leader of the main opposition CHP, is on TV today, excoriating Erdogan, the PM for 'lobbying' to be part of an invasion into Syria. But it's not seen as a party with a whole load of pull or charisma, they've lost a lot of support over the years , seen as too distant from a lot of the people. Public opinion is dead set against it but I also read today of the turkish military setting up a new base right across the border near Latakia. They've moved coastguard boats as near as is possible to the sea border and military vehicles seem to be regularly on the move down there.I think it's the NYT today reporting a 'planned 3 day attack' very soon, 'strategic bombing', assess, then more 'strategic bombing.'It's difficult to suss out the military's own stance on this whole thing. After the recent judgements on a whole host of serving and retired military – the Ergenekon trial – and severe sentencing, talking to Turkish friends, the public is also somewhat confused and split on the military. Too complicated to go into mit here!Remember public opinion here before the Iraq invasion forced the govt to change its tack (the same govt) and disallow the use of Turkish territory for troops to cross into Iraq. Erdogan has become much stronger and dare i say intransigent, so who knows how they will play it, but if they do more than they're doing now – which isn't popular – who knows what the blowback will be.Anyone interested in more on this can access http://www.hurriyetdailynews.comAnother site with a Turkish section is http://jadaliyya.com/ They cover all kinds of topics at some length.Oh, by the way, more news today – a follow on to the Gezi protests – protests again in Istanbul following a huge tree cutting spree on the technical university site to make a road, something to do with the new 3rd airport construction. And the polis are out in force again.
Back from the brink?I think Obama's solution is a useful one depending on the conditions, of course. US Marines deployed to guard the stock-piles won't get anywhere and i doubt Americans would accept Russian or Iranian or even Venezuelan troops. Perhaps a joint force of the non-aligned.But we do have a template in North Korea where the nuclear establishments have UN video cameras monitoring them. Cheap and effective but i suppose it cannot offer actual resistance if someone actually arrives to remove the chemical weapons to use.But perhaps a combination of cameras and security-guards..Swiss Guards from the Vatican? A timely offer from the Pope would certainly help, they are all professionally trained in modern arms and are not just ceremonial or carrying pikes. That would certainly give an end to Stalin's jibe, how many regiments does he have…I also read that the PKK are reconsidering their ceasefire …how that effects the Syrian Kurds and Turkey, i'm not sure….again Janet may offer more info. I did read Turkish aircraft were moved closer to Syrian border so its evidence their role will be a more active one.
For the background on the other actors in the Syrian civil war, this article on Qatar is exceptionally good on little-known facts on it. http://www.countercurrents.org/rudolph090913.htm
Actually it appears it was RUSSIA's Putin initiative to put Syria's weapons under international control…And future destruction of the stock-piles. Once again fooled by the BBC spin which turned it into an Obama idea. Syria has already agreed in principle.
Whatever the final outcome (which hopefully won't be more bombing, i.e more destruction, more deaths, more refugees), it's good to see the warmongers being outmanoeuvred at every turn for once.
A not very frequent interview with Assad. Perhaps someone can tell me where the BBC has had such a lengthy interview with him? http://sana.sy/eng/21/2013/09/10/501729.htm
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.