Syria: will the West attack?
- This topic has 366 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Saw the latest copy of the AWL paper Solidarity yesterday (which another comrade bought) and was surprised to see that their comments on "The British Far Left in Syria" , especially about SPEW's view that the TUC can topple the present government if it calls a 24-hour strike and about some Trotskyist groups that have called for the rebels to be armed, were similar to those here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/syria-will-west-attack?page=4#comment-7853A shortened version of the article can be found here:http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/09/03/british-far-left-syriabut it doesn't contain this comment on the joint appeal by three Trotskyist groups to arm the rebels:
Quote:The International Socialist Network (ISN, the SWP splinter group), Workers' Power, and Socialist Resistance have issued a joint statement (bit.ly/isn-syria) It has the merit of not letting its ideas on Syria be read backward from thrills about Cameron's defeat, and of mentioning the predatory ambitions of Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran.But it lauds the Syrian opposition militias, without qualification, as embodying the "Arab revolution". Why not then welcome the US bombing, which may at least help that opposition a bit? Because, the statement says, the bombing would be a means for the US to gain "control".In another comment, Gilbert Achcar of SR extends the thought. There he opposes bombing on the grounds that it may help the US engineer a peace deal. So full victory for the most militant parts of the opposition is the desired result?Incoherently, and always by implication, never by positive statement, the ISN-SR-WP text makes three contradictory demands on the western powers.1. That they arm the whole Syrian opposition, without conditions;2. That they supply (only?) "defensive" weapons to the opposition;3. That they arm (only?) the "progressive and democratic" parts of the opposition.So there are reactionary parts of it? Will the ISN send a member to the region to advise the US on which opposition groups are "progressive and democratic". Or do they trust the US to exert that control unadvised? But wasn't their objection to the bombing precisely that it would help the US exert control?This is where you end up if you think it worth advising capitalist states how to play power politics.
Interesting items here about what's going on in Syria that you don't hear much about:http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/14092013http://rudaw.net/english/interview/21082013http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2013/08/al-qaeda-pkk-war-syria-turkey-border.htmlOf course we can't know from here how much of this might be propaganda and how much is true.
ALB wrote:A shortened version of the article can be found here:http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/09/03/british-far-left-syriaI wonder if the only comment on this article so far, "The Socialist Party also says:" (not us, them – yet another example of the confusion caused by the shortening of our name) is by the same person who is on our mailing list?
Nearly half the Syrian rebel force is Jihadists. 10,000 linked with Al Qaida, 30-35000 other assorted hard-line Jihadist. "The idea that it is mostly secular groups leading the opposition is just not borne out." said Charles Lister, defence consultancy IHS Jane's.http://uk.news.yahoo.com/half-syrian-rebels-hardline-islamists-british-study-225207222.html#TeP1UhI
Turkey said it had shot down a Syrian helicopter close to its border. Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc said the aircraft was engaged by fighter jets after violating Turkish air space.I would suggest that this is a serious escalation that somehow does not merit highlighting by the media but an aside http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24113553
I think this article shows that the Syrian Civil War is not so much a war over resources but a war for resources as income sources to carry on the war…if you get the difference. Its an article describing the occupation of a so-called liberated area by Al Nusra, the Jihadist Al Qaida proxy. There is also an interesting aside how the Free Syrian Army co-operates with the government on the distribution of gas. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/11/201816/nusra-front-militias-control-of.html#.Ujd4X9KnoQD
Yet another twist in the tale of the gas attackhttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/gas-missiles-were-not-sold-to-syria-8831792.html Russia may have identified the rockets used in the gas attack were not Syrian but instead ones that they supplied to Libya.
Why should it be that we are expected to trust "our" own government and its propaganda outlet, the BBC, more than the Russian government and RT tv. http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-un-resolution-356/ Surely it is not because we trust our government or the BBC not to mislead us?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/most-of-syrias-toxins-can-be-destroyed-more-easily-than-officials-initially-thought/2013/09/26/66cd1ca2-26e3-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html?wpisrc=al_national Now Russia and the US are claiming that the Surias toxins can be easily destroyed. They are unweaponized
Found this gem in the Guardian today.http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/26/mod-study-sell-wars-publicI never knew the MoD had an Orwellian style think tank called The Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC). I checked out their site and it seems they have been around since 1998.Here's a little bit of the truth, regarding the role of the military, from their site;"Through the Global Strategic Trends Programme, this team provides the strategic context within which long term decisions can be made in policy and strategy areas. Our analysis leads to the likely defence and security implications, the UK may face as a result of changes in areas such as global commerce, economics, science and technology, and politics."To quote a character from the TV series the X-Files, "The truth is out there. You just have to know where to look."The sad thing is, most people don't want to look, or dare not look. Like the war widow in the article who is shocked that the military would manipulate the deaths of soldiers, to secure an agenda.
An article by the respected journalist Seymour Hersh on the sarin gas attack. http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/12/08/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin "the irony is that, after Assad’s stockpile of precursor agents is destroyed, al-Nusra and its Islamist allies could end up as the only faction inside Syria with access to the ingredients that can create sarin"
When peace talks make the excuse for war. http://truth-out.org/news/item/21520-is-syrian-peace-conference-laying-the-foundation-for-war
The US appears to be upping the tempo in its propaganda since the failure of the peace talks which some claim were aimed to fail. Apart from criticism that in a midst of a war the Syrian government is behind its timetable to transport its chemical weapons to the third parties, we have the US describing the use of improvised barrel bombs as an outrage ..not like their own sophisticated weaponry used against their enemies. But why Barrel Bombs so deserving of condemnation…and not the use of car bombs by the resistance? If the Syrian government is held to the higher moral point, why not the US themselves or allies such as Israel. Hypocrisy, once againhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War
Not being a Foreign Office insider I am dismayed at the criticism of the Syrian government's stance in the unsuccessful peace talks. The agenda is in 4 parts. The agenda comprised four points:Violence and terrorismA transitional governing bodyNational institutionsNational reconciliation What we find is that Syrian Government are emphasising the end of violence and the implementation of a ceasefire,(as is currently being negotiated locally at Homs) but the West insist that the transitory governing body should be given priority i.e. regime change. The BBC quotes UK's Hague and the French Fabious but fails to report the Russian foreign minister, again an example of selective cherry-pickiing of views by the supposed impartial BBC. For the record Lavrov said “The only thing they [the West] want to talk about is the establishment of a transitional governing body,” Sergey Lavrov said Friday after meeting with the German foreign minister in Moscow. “Only after that are they ready to discuss the urgent and most pressing problems, like terrorism.”The same report carries info that the US is bankrolling their proxy Syrian resistance groups and that Saudi have anti-aircraft missiles ready to distribute to their proxy armies. http://rt.com/news/saudis-new-weapons-syria-124/
Thought this thread should be bumped up since it looks as if the UK will soon be flying strike actions in Syria and upping their drone assassinationsNo doubt we have all read how Russian aircraft are tresspassing into Turkish airspace…but is it true?Turkish "airspace" is now 5 miles INSIDE Syria's airspaceI first read it on a Russian Insider which of course is a questionable bias source http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/russia-violated-turkish-airspace-because-turkey-moved-its-border/ri10230So waited until it was confirmed by another source, this time a Turkish newspaperhttp://www.yenisafak.com/en/world/turkish-f-16s-intercept-russian-jet-after-violating-turkish-air-space-2314895Of course, the media is conveniently silent on the almost daily violations of Syria's airspace by Turkey and the rest of the anti-Assad coalition, unlike Russia, none of which have been invited to participate by the legally recognised and UN endorsed government of Syria.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.