Over at Pulse, Idrees Ahmad points me to an Al Jazeera investigation by Mahmoud Al Ken into the Houla massacre near Homs, Syria, last May that confirms the original report that the murders of 108 villagers were carried out by Syrian government forces. Writes Pulse:
There is no reason why official stories shouldn’t be doubted, but given the heinous nature of the crime, one would’ve thought they’d be careful with regard to their evidence. As it happened, all of them were relying on a single article appearing in a German publication, written by an author who never visited Houla or met a survivor. This was no innocent mistake: it was pointed out to both Medialens and FAIR that their source was dubious and its claim highly questionable. The source was discredited soon afterwards, and Der Spiegel and the UN have since both confirmed the original reports. Neither Medialens nor FAIR has apologized.
Below is the Al Jazeera piece. Beautifully done, the kind of journalism it’s hard to put down once you start. It begins, Our Friday demonstration on May 25 was met by Assad tanks. The several men interviewed from 3:30 to 5:40 or so are genuine and persuasive, and the massacre house testimony from a brother of victims at 7:30 is also compelling. And the nighttime movement of the bodies, described by a villager, at 8:45, rivetting. The traumatized woman at 9:40: stunning.
Some of these people are very brave to come forward. The elder male witness at 10:30-11– great reporting.
And most important, please watch the highly-articulate clerical figure speaking at 13:52, saying that the purpose of the massacre was to ignite a sectarian conflict in an area of mixed Sunni and Alawite villages.
I must now ask readers to look at the comments to this Mondoweiss post, which refers skeptically to the Syrian regime-perpetrated Houla massacre, from June 15: On Syria, Clinton spins a fast one
Here is a typical thread:
riyadh says:
June 15, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Was Houla Massacre a Manufactured Atrocity?
link to fair.org
REPLY
stevieb says:
June 16, 2012 at 10:18 am
Absolutely…how is it you don’t know by now? Or is that a rhetorical question?
Yep.
REPLY
traintosiberia says:
June 16, 2012 at 12:40 pm
MEA CULPA: BBC world news editor: Houla massacre coverage based on opposition propaganda
by Chris Marsden http://www.globalresearch.ca
Unfortunately ( intentionally ) its in his blog.Blog is not news according to the apparatus that he serves.
REPLY
Annie Robbins says:
June 16, 2012 at 1:26 pm
riyadh, from the comment section of your link:
Imperialism and the Houla massacre:
..None of these events can be understood outside the political crisis provoked by last year’s revolutionary upsurge in the Middle East. Mass protests of workers and youth forced out pro-US dictators in Egypt and Tunisia. However, the lack of a politically independent movement of the working class fighting to take power and fight for socialism gave the US and its allies time to regroup and elaborate a counter-revolutionary strategy.
The aim of the imperialist powers has been to further the colonial re-subjugation of the entire Middle East. Protests against pro-US regimes were to be crushed. As for protests in countries without close ties to Washington, like Libya or Syria, they were to be brought under the control of right-wing forces to divert protests along ethnic or sectarian lines. They would then serve as proxies in US-led civil wars—as Washington posed as a friend of the “Arab spring” because it was trying to depose Middle East regimes.
After the Saudi monarchy bloodily suppressed protests in Bahrain, the US promoted Islamist and tribal elements against Libyan Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who was toppled by NATO and Islamist-rebels in a bloody war costing some 50,000 lives. In Syria, the US relied largely on Sunni elements like the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, financed by the anti-Shiite Saudi monarchy. The massacre in Houla is the predictable outcome of Washington’s promotion of these reactionary forces.
The imperialist strategy relied on the bankruptcy of Middle Eastern bourgeois nationalist regimes and their right-wing evolution after the fall of the USSR. Deprived of a great-power defender and deeply unpopular due to their free-market reforms, they were beset with deep ethnic and sectarian divisions and vulnerable to US intervention. The Assad regime, which has carried out repeated “liberalization” policies and draws its ruling personnel from the Alawite religious minority, was particularly vulnerable…
link to wsws.org
i recommend the whole link
How did it come to this?
Some thoughts on Syria from Palestinian intellectual and the founder of the Balad Party, Azmi Bishara from last week:
“No people, anywhere in the world, would accept torture, false imprisonment, financial corruption and the muzzling of the media for generation after generation, regardless of the justification. Nor does anybody to have the right that those being persecuted remain quiet for the sake of grander concerns, without hopes for a change, all to placate commentators who seem to think that the suffering of the people is secondary to the “Central Question”, especially as all the evidence that no progress on that same “Central Question” in the first place.
Nobody has the right to just claim to have “understood” the people’s pain and the righteousness of their claims, and then ask those people to simply stay on the sidelines while the leaders undertake some reforms. No human likes being shot at and bombed, but you cannot expect that people who get shot at while protesting peacefully to take it sitting down. If you cannot compel the regime to deal peacefully with peaceful protests, then [any demands that the rebellion end] are demands that the people accept that they should be killed, that their losses for the revolution thus far have been in vain.
History will not be kind to the Syrian regime for the way it ordered soldiers to fire on peaceful protestors. Those peaceful protests had been the regime’s greatest fear, and so they worked to quell them in the cradle.
It seems inevitable that, if you are being bombed, driven from your home and your possessions looted, that you will reach out to anybody who stretches his hand out to you. Those who abandoned the revolutionaries at their time of need have no right to lecture them on who their sources of support are, especially if nobody is able to persuade the regime to carry out any kind of meaningful process of reform towards democracy, or even to hand over power gradually.”
Eleanor, these are not “revolutionaries” in Syria. These so-called “rebels” are for the most part foreign salafist “fighters” injected by the coalition of the evil ones – US/OK neocons, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with Turkey blackmailed into the mix. What you are doing is a poster case of manufacturing consent in the “left”.
Personally, anyone who supports the horrid plan to break up Syria and precipitate civil war – which is what those amazingly well spoken Syrian ‘activists” are actually trying to accomplish, is either blind, naive beyond belief or cowed by the disinformation campaign.
this post by Phil is a tongue-in-cheek, in case you didn’t notice. The der Spiegel writer has not been proven wrong – far from it – he has been vindicated several times over and from several sources –.
So one must take anything from Al jazeera with a huge grain of salt. It is, after all, owned by Qatar which came out as dedicated to “regime” change in Syria, hence the sleek production values that Phil highlighted. neither is the UN to be trusted any longer – way too many of its agencies have been bought, and Ban himself is basically a patsy for the powers-that-be.
But apparently, none of this matters to those who can be had and/or bought by tales of woe. carefully engineered to fit the listeners tender ears. Shame on EK< you for supporting the atrocities committed in Syrian in the name of "freedom". Shame on you for supporting 'regime change" in favor of an intolerant islamist gangsterism. Shame on you for being in cahoots with the worst of the Iraq war criminals. Shame on yopu for supporting the plan we all are aware of where turbing Syria into a battle zone is viewed as the key to "getting" Iran.
Maybe you should talk to some actual, real Syrian people? maybe you should talk to the majority of the Syrians who oppose – with all their hearts – this plan of wrecking havoc in Syria. the millions who absolutely refused to support the invading hordes and lived to see their towns torn by strife?
There is, in fact, very strong evidence that the Houla massacre was perpetrated by the "rebels" – just look at the victims – among others – the very ones who wouldn't join the rebels. The idea that the Assad government (no more a regime than Quatar's or Bahrain's, or for that matter, England's where the choice is between neoliberal neocon and illiberal neocon) wants 'sectarian strife" is absolutely nonsense – taken straight out of the fantasies of those long-suffering, now well-annointed, and very well-funded, Syrian "exiles".
You Eleanor, demonstrate well why the left has no chance of ever winning anything. It has no commitment to truth and has too little courage. It is swayed in the wind of every disinformation campaign, marching to the tunes of those calling the tune, even as they paint their bleeding hearts on their sleeve.
Would you support BTW a bloody take-over of the Cameron shill government in the interest of the working people of the UK? would you support a bloody secession war by Scotland? would you enjoy seeing London overtaken by Tanks and bullets? all in the interest of bringing justice to the people and taking revenge, saym, over the horrors visited upon Iraq? if the answer is not, then you should understand the residents of damascus and Allepo who did not exactly supported the gangsters injected by the axis of evil. No wonder these towns are so readily – if too slowly – being cleaned up of the terrorists. Yes, the ones who you seem to support.
Danaa, are you an ‘actual real Syrian’ person? Would you like me to talk to you instead of the Syrian people I know? The thing is that so far you are sounding deranged, so unless you can persuade me otherwise, I’ll stick to my more reliable sources.
Eleanor, I am not an actual Syrian person, though I believe I am n actual person who maybe gets to talk now and then, to a few Syrian persons of somewhat different persuasion than the ones you know. But I also try to read rather widely, and fully admit having a beef with the naivite and fleetiness of the “well-meaning” left.
That being said, I do apologize for the many typos – had no chance to fix. No one deserves to be bombarded with careless English, not even from the most deranged of authors.
Danaa ain’t sounding “deranged”, Eleanor. But you’re definitely sounding dumb.
Oh if only you can talk to the Syrians I KNOW!
Taxi says: “But you’re definitely sounding dumb.”
It’s reassuring to see others come in for this treatment as well.
I was born to ‘reassure’ you, Colin.
You really can be such a time-waster: dragging inconsequential tiffs from one thread to another. Grow the eff up!
Taxi: “I was born to ‘reassure’ you, Colin.
You really can be such a time-waster: dragging inconsequential tiffs from one thread to another. Grow the eff up!”
There’s no ‘tiff’: just you pointlessly and as far as I can see without provocation verbally abusing all and sundry. It’s one of the shortcomings of the internet: certain people just can’t get over the fact that here they can be as rude as they please without consequences.
You poor victim you, Colin.
Taxi: ‘You poor victim you, Colin.’
Just the opposite. If it was only me you were abusing, it would at least leave open the possibility that it was something about me. Since I shortly see you treating someone else to your special brand of charm, the case may be that it’s something about you.
Colin,
It’s more offensive to waste people’s precious time than to use a coupla gruff words.
. “Since I shortly see you treating someone else to your special brand of charm, the case may be that it’s something about you.”
Oh my. Oh my oh my. Oh my oh my oh my. Why, I’m glad I see it with my own eyes, I wouldn’t have believed it if somebody told me about it, and really, who would?
But then, perhaps Taxi doesn’t know what Colin’s “background” is.
Colin, you’re missing the obvious, and getting worked up over nothing! Think about it, man; a person who is “dumb” can’t speak! Get it?
How broad does a witticism have to be before you can grasp it? You want pratfalls and pigs-bladders? Exploding cigars?
Just warning you, Colin, but if you refuse to ‘get’ literary humor, people will say you’re anti-Semantic.
“certain people just can’t get over the fact that here they can be as rude as they please without consequences.”
Yup, I’ve noticed that you have no qualms about saying the most offensive things you can think of, making fantastic, senseless accusations and and tendentious analysis, and, worst of all, getting up on a high horse.
And who the hell made you the authourity on intenet behavior? And what, tough guy, are you saying the consequences would be if we weren’t on the internet. What would you do, throw punches? Call the police? And, BTW, you’re completely wrong. On there internet, there is a consequence: Your words are taken down and stored in an archive, time stamped, and available for searching. In everyday life they just melt away into thin air.
So what consequences are you proposing? That you run the comment section according to your ideas of the expressible and not-expressible?
And you should have italicised “certain”, it gives it certain immature insinuatory quality which melds perfectly with your internet model-boy pose.
Mooser says: “Yup, I’ve noticed that you have no qualms about saying the most offensive things you can think of, making fantastic, senseless accusations and and tendentious analysis, and, worst of all, getting up on a high horse…”
You’re picking up speed again, Mooser.
DANAA- “this post by Phil is a tongue-in-cheek, in case you didn’t notice.”
Eleanor isn’t the only one who didn’t notice. Phil’s alleged tongue-in-cheek post struck me as Phil being Phil. He supported the assault on Libya, his mind captivated by the ‘Arab Spring’ metaphor which gives him hope and allows him to believe what is convenient to believe. You simply can’t be a liberal in imperial America without a firm commitment to humanitarian intervention, the responsibility to protect. As for me, it is quite obvious that this is yet another imperial intervention for strategic reasons. Qatar supports the rebels/mercenaries/special ops forces, etc, and so does Al Jazeera. Sectarian conflict and massacres are an inevitable consequence of this intervention. As for Houla, I don’t know and don’t trust any sources. I also don’t view this one specific massacre as being that special. There has already been a lot of killing, with more sure to come. And this I blame on US/NATO/Israel/Turkey/Saudi Arabia/Qatar. Once again, the US is supporting al Qaeda to achieve its objectives.
AS is often the case, I agree with you keith on much of what you say. The humanitarian interventionist instinct is indeed strong in every liberal. I remember supporting the bombing of Serbia and I was even sort of on the fence about Libya. I know a lot more now about how powerful the sway is from the news and how easy it is to get swayed. I agree that the full truth of what happened in Houla is not known because there are too many players who are keen on distorting the facts to fit their own narrative. What is a bit strange to me is that while sharing your distrust of most sources about Syria, I wasn’t so picky about Libya. Now that I think of it there may have been some serious psychology at work. Gaddafi was just the kind of guy that could be pinned with anything, and the news feed took full advantage of his and his sons’ lack of comely personalities. Need to figure out why I didn’t do as much ranting then. was it just that like everyone else I didn’t like the look of them and was willing to believe the worst?
DANAA- I don’t think it is realistically possible to evaluate individual circumstances without reference to the big picture. One simply cannot evaluate the situation in Syria or Libya without a historical and geo-strategic perspective.
Historically, virtually all of the Third World suffers from the legacy of colonialism and the reality of neo-colonialism. Most of the countries in the Middle East were established by imperial fiat (primarily the British and French) in such a way as to facilitate future imperial control by making them inherently unstable through sectarian divisions which could be exploited to ‘divide and conquer, divide and rule.’ Under these circumstances, authoritarian regimes at least kept the peace and avoided civil war.
Neo-colonialism has meant that these countries are more-or-less locked in exploitive economic relationships with the West which limits what they can do in any event. Basically, they are the suppliers of cheap raw materials, cheap labor, and open markets, the system keeping them to these roles, attempts to deviate fiercely resisted. This is what the American/Western empire is all about.
Under the circumstances described, what kinds of government are even possible under these conditions? If one were to do a survey of Third World governments, particularly in the Middle East and Africa, it would be readily apparent that they are not classic Western ‘democracies’ (democratic forms), how could they be? If one were to rank them by odiousness, in the Middle East surely Saudi Arabia would be considered one of the worst. In other words, comparing Gaddafi and Assad to the other heads of state in the region, they were/are not that bad, although there would be much to criticize, much of which a consequence of Western interference. The West actually prefers rulers who can be demonized when they get out of line, thereby justifying an intervention. In this regard, the West has generally opposed any form of secular democracy in the Middle East, overthrowing Mossadegh and crushing Nasser, while supporting Islamic fundamentalists like the Mujahideen brought into Afghanistan.
As for the geo-strategic, it is important to be aware that following WWII, the US assumed responsibility for the welfare of global capitalism. In Italy, Greece, Korea, Viet Nam, and elsewhere, the popular anti-fascist resistance was crushed and fascist collaborators were restored to power. Noam Chomsky discusses this in detail in “Turning the Tide.” The bottom line is that empire doesn’t do humanitarian. While it is remotely possible that an intervention carried out for strategic purposes may inadvertently provide some benefit for humanity (WWII is the only example which comes to mind), an imperial intervention will never be carried out which is not primarily motivated by strategic concerns. These strategic considerations are rarely, if ever, articulated in the mass media, and may not be obvious. All interventions will be wrapped in propaganda. Gaddafi was trying to achieve a small measure of independence for Libya and Africa and had to go when the time was right. Besides, the US is a warfare state which looks for excuses to implement military Keynesianism, always at war with someone somewhere.
Keith, you and I were among the very few here that didn’t fall for the “Arab Spring” gimmick. Today, Rehmat had a lot to say about what really happened and Israel’s implication in all of this:
Tunisia: ‘West’s Islamists and Israel’
Posted on August 19, 2012
Who’re the ‘evil-doers’ behind the so-called ‘Arab Spring’? Who would know better than an Israeli’s deputy foreign minister Ayalon who said on August 10 that the western post-Assad plan calls for the fragmentation of Syria into Alawite, Sunni, Druze and Kurd provinces. He added that a similar fate is awaiting for Lebanon in the near future. Ayalon ruled out the possibility of the emergence of an Arab alliance that would stand in opposition to Israel in the next 10 to 15 years.
Last month, Gabriel M. Scheinmann, a visiting Fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), admitted that the Zionist entity is in fact the winner of the so-called “Arab Spring”.
Let us visit the birthplace of ‘Arab Spring’, Tunisia – where the pro-Western dictator Ben Ali was replaced by the so-called ‘Islamist’ En-Nahda’ movement. En-Nahda’s leader Rachid Ghannouchi had spent his decade-long exile in Britain, where he ‘dined’ with anti-Muslim crowd. Soon after his party’s victory in the so-called ‘a rare fair democratic election’ – Rachid Ghannouchi paid a secret visit to Washington-based Israel lobby group, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). In the meeting Ghannouchi promised his Jewish hosts that En-Nahda would oppose the inclusion of a clause in country’s Constitution to terminate diplomatic relations with the Zionist entity – as demanded by opposition parties and a great majority of Tunisians.
… Ghannouchi and the other so-called ‘Islamist’ leaders who came into power in Egypt and Libya as result of Arab Spring – have proven their reputation for duplicity and deception. They say one thing to to the US-Israel lobby groups and another thing to their countrymen. In Tunisia some groups have started protests against the hypocrisy of their Islamist regime. Protests are being held in several Tunisian cities against En-Nahda lead government. The protesters have blamed En-Nahda for the lack of progress in the country. In rsponse En-Nahda leaders have called the protesters ‘enemies of Allah’.
Rashed al-Ghannushi while claiming to set an example for the Arabs struggling to get rid of their corrupt regimes – joined the ‘Axis of Evil’ against the ‘Axis of Resistance’ by allowing western proxy, ‘Friends of Syria‘ to hold its first meeting in Tunisia.
En-Nahda party has turned into a tool of the US-Israel-Saudi ‘Axis of Evil’. Recently, Lebanese Islamic Resistance Hizbullah member, Samir Kuntar, who was imprisoned in Israel for 30 years on false charges and later released as part of a prisoner exchange between Israel and Hizbullah, narrowly escaped being lynched by a group of 500 Salafi thugs armed with swords, batons, knives and other weapons, on his recent visit to Tunisia. Five others were injured, some seriously. Media reports that neither this nor other attacks have been deterred in the slightest by the Interior Ministry which is controlled by a Nahda official. The Salafis justified their attack by recalling Kuntar’s allegiance to Shi’ism (he is a Druze convert) and his support for the Syrian government. Kuntar’s real crime was that two days prior to the incident, he called on En-Nahda leader Rachid al-Ghannouchi, not to re-establish diplomatic relation with the Zionist entity if he was indeed serious about liberating Palestine. Analysts believe that his statement was regarded by some party cadres as a provocation which warranted a response
for full article:
link to rehmat1.com
Danaa, the fighters in most part are not foreigners. The foreigners there are those that are professional or quasi-professional like those brought in from Libya or Iraq and Yemen but the bulk of the fighter are Syrian peons that in good part are Muslim Brothers. Since 1980 and up until the constitutional amendments of last year, it was a capital crime to be a member of the MB punishable by death. The Brothers have been at it with the Baathists since 1963. In the late 70s, the Brothers killed 80 cadets at the Aleppo Military Academy and a bit later tried to kill Assad Sr for which, the Baathist regime killed over 20,000 at Hama and pulverized the city in 1982. So there are a lot of unhappy Brothers in Syria that didn’t need much to turn on the regime. Those countries you mentioned may be sending arms, money and fighters to help the Syrian insurgents, but the bulk of the fighters is comprised of disgruntled Syrian nationals that (rightfully or wrongfully) feel oppresed by the Baathists since 60 years.
Thanks Walid for the correction. It does seem likely – based on the accounts I’ve been reading – that there is a substantial MB component among the “rebels” and this accounts for their decidedly islamist bend. However, as you like to point out yourself, the MB is often set up against the Salafists – likely by outside forces, bent on keeping the MB “under control”. Also from what I could surmise there were very few real Salafi elements in Syria itself before the armed hostilities started, so it is natural to assume that most of those that make it into the news are likely outsiders, in one way or another.
However the composition of the Syrian “rebels”, if indeed the flames of zeal are carried d primarily by the islamist MB component (which would jibe well with the rural parts of the country and the obvious sectarian nature of the conflict) , that would explain the fact that the more secular, the better educated, the more urban seem to be sitting it out – rather than joinning in on the side of the ‘rebels’.
Danaa, the substabtial MB element among the rebels is in good part poor Syrian peons that got on the religious merry-g0-round. Brothers, Salafis, Wahabis are all first cousins that differ only in the slow or fast roads they want to take to get there. In the end, it will be as you said about them fighting among themselves as it’s stating in Egypt and now to a mild degree in Syria with Qatar having opted to fund only the Brothers while the Saudis fund only the Salafi. One can’t fully grasp what’s happening in Syria today without knwledge of the history of the Brothers in Syria, the rise of Baathism and the events about Hama in 1982.
eleanor, i guess i fail to see what is wrong with me copy/pasting a portion of that article. didn’t you write a whole front page article about how disappointed you are with the comments here about syria?
the thrust of your criticism seems to be focused on others who do not agree with you as opposed to criticizing the regime or lauding the opposition per se. calling danaa ‘deranged’ doesn’t help your argument. nor does ignoring the qatar governments relationship with al jazeera and the opposition, iow, they are not neutral.
i understand you are angry and upset everyone here doesn’t agree w/your pt of view, but the syrian people are not, do not think of one mind, therefore your syrian friends and danaa’s or taxi’s or whomevers syrian friends could very well be speaking their truth,completely opposite and still be accurate.
I must now ask readers to look at the comments to this Mondoweiss post
why? because it is all figured out now? the report starts out by saying they are unable to verify the film clips. i am sorry you are taking this disagreement over perceptions so personally.
Still can’t pick a side Annie ,
well that is progress…
Still can’t pick a side Annie
there are not ‘two sides’ in this battle battle oleg, that’s a fool’s game.
Sure there are Annie there is the baathist side that makes excuses for Houla
There is the revolutionary side
they throw people from roofs
“…Sure there are Annie there is the baathist side that makes excuses for Houla There is the revolutionary side they throw people from roofs…”
Civil upheavals in divided and impoverished communities that have been edifying to watch. Let’s see:
Nope, nothing comes to mind. I think they always look about like this.
I can certainly think of several that have. The successive slaughters that occurred in Galicia from 1939 to 1944, Indian partition, Bosnia…
A lot of posters seem to be quite sure what is going on, and even what is going to happen. I’m not. I think:
(a) Assad is finished. Anything that hastens his downfall will at least shorten the process of finally resolving all this.
(b) just about all the external players seem to have an agenda — and as a rule, those agendas don’t seem to include the welfare of the Syrian people.
(c) the various minority communities are quite likely to get it in the neck. A good deal of the majority community is as well, come to that.
(d) I don’t know what the answer is. It would probably help if the various significant external parties would try to coordinate a unified response. It’s secondary what that response is — the real point is to avoid having everyone throwing buckets of gasoline into the fire. It’d be nice if we could get to that point sooner rather than later. I imagine we will — but how many have to die first?
Nothing can be done in this case Colin, not unless the west is willing
to try and play God and Educator again which i doubt.(And even then considering the piss poor job it did in Iraq…)
This will run it’s bloody course regardless of anybody’s good or bad intentions.
I do find the Assad supporters hypocrisy amusing as Eleanor rightly pointed out.
But not to worry in a few days this article will be forgotten and you all
can join hands again, bashing Israel to your hearts content.
OlegR says: “Nothing can be done in this case Colin, not unless the west is willing
to try and play God and Educator again which i doubt.(And even then considering the piss poor job it did in Iraq…)
This will run it’s bloody course regardless of anybody’s good or bad intentions….”
The problem with this is two-fold. First, inaction is itself a choice. Unless one is simply physically impotent to intervene, one cannot escape moral responsibility simply by doing nothing.
Second, others will intervene. It’s a moot point what the Syrians would do in a vacuum; they’re not going to be in a vacuum.
It seems to me that one is inexorably led to the conclusion that as many of the significant, influential players as can stand the sight of each other need to get together in a single room and pound out a common policy. Turkey, Jordan, the United States — probably Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Lebanon. Russia because she’ll cause more trouble if she’s excluded than if she’s included, Iran if the US can be brought to accept it, Saudi Arabia because she’s got a whole hell of a lot of money and it needs to be agreed where it’s going to go (or not go), and Iraq and Lebanon because they’re going to be intimately affected by the outcome. Israel’s out because everyone else hates her and she’d just try to sabotage everything anyway.
Whatever. It’s a balancing act between getting a group that is small enough and harmonious enough to come up with meaningful common ground — and getting a group that’s large enough to credibly claim to constitute a consensus. What precisely that consensus is is secondary. If Obama were a leader he’d be working on this right now.
That is the way that will lead to the lowest body count. I really think that in this sort of situation, everything else is beside the point.
Annie, why is it my opinions and perspectives on Syria are ‘taking it personally’ and yours are, what, being ‘objective’?
I have lived and studied in Damascus, have an MA in Near and Middle Eastern Studies, speak and read Arabic, and have worked closely with a range of Syrians – indeed I have even socialised, to my shame, with regime spokesperson Jihad Makdissi when he was at the London embassy, and yet of course I do not consider myself to be an expert, and I have never claimed to be. The fact I have cited my Syrian friends’ testimonies and insights and shared their distress, as well as doing my own research, means you somehow consider my opinion somehow less credible than any other ‘skeptical’ commentator.
I copied and pasted that thread because it is an example of the absurd rhetoric I have found on Mondoweiss regarding Syria, and in particular the response to this massacre of civilians. To use your phrasing ‘I am sorry’ that you are unable to accept these eye-witness accounts of the Houla massacre. Are you waiting for verification from RT?
why is it my opinions and perspectives on Syria are ‘taking it personally’ and yours are, what, being ‘objective’?
i wasn’t referencing your opinions and perspectives on Syria eleanor, i was referencing your hurt around us. calling danaa deranged was only part of it. you started off with a first comment asking us to look back on our past comments.
but what was the point of copying riyadh’s comment (sans link)? it led to this link: link to fair.org
do you know the meaning or implication of ‘a Manufactured Atrocity’? it doesn’t mean, or imply it wasn’t an atrocity. you’ve set yourself up as the (only) ‘friend’ of the syrian people here as if we just do not care, because our assessment doesn’t jive with yours.. and this is not helpful.
we are all in the midst of an info war. that means by design we are not afforded clarity.
and in your own words:
I find myself in the … wanting defend Syrian people..from the insinuation that they are waging a US/Zionist/Saudi Arabia proxy war against a true friend of Palestine.
so it is you here defending the syrian people. and oleg chastises me for not ‘taking a side’. it seems to me you have this idea the ‘syrian people’ are of one mind that you understand (albiet you’ve mentioned your caveats along with studied in Damascus, MA in Near and Middle Eastern Studies, speak and read Arabic, worked closely socialized w/ Syrians – worked with Syrians in London, hosted Syrian artists, etc) and therefore we…we’re what? callous? uncaring?
i know western intervention.i know what it brings. iraq. lebanon, palestine, and i do not trust it or who they use in their proxy wars. so i know you take it personally we are not in the same assessment, but i do not take swipes at what i perceive as your blind spots in a condescending way. i do not think i hold illusions about assad. but i know what the opposition is made of and it is not (at all) limited to,’the syrian people’. i am not an interventionalist nor do i judge assad by an assessment of merely, limited to, ” a true friend of Palestine”
so if you have an opinion why are you making it about us? look what riyadh said 2 months ago. please look! see annie’s comment? traintosiberia’s? see our scepticism? weren’t we all foools because now it is as you say..you know who carried out the massacre and we were wrong?
eleanor, i do not know who carried out the massacre. i have my deep suspicions but i wouldn’t bet my son’s life on it. but that doesn’t mean you care more about syrians than me.
i distrust my government in syria and i have every right to. you begrudge me of that for some reason. i spent a lot of time at dkos where they haul out old comments to shame people for past remarks. it’s just unhelpful. war hurts, it hurts everyone and some more than others. but yes since you asked yes, i think i am more objective than you about syria. you would probably think the same of yourself. phil and i disagree over syria, for the most part..and about western intervention. i am much more cynical..but we don’t hold it against each other. we understand we have different perspectives. but you seem to take it very personal.
Ok, let’s stop the accusations, Annie, of ‘you seem to take it very personal’ :). A few further clarifications
I avoid posting on Syria because I do not consider myself an expert, as I have repeatedly asserted. I come to Mondoweiss for news & analysis on I/P, though it would be great if Mondoweiss decided to start publishing posts by those who are knowlegeable about Syria/ a range of Syrian voices. In the meantime, I want to address what I see as an alarming trend by commenters here for the sort of rhetoric best exemplified by Danaa above.
That brings me to my next point. Saying Danaa sounds deranged in the comment above is not ‘referencing my hurt’. I seriously, objectively, non-personally, and without referencing-my-hurt believe the ideology espoused by Danaa is deranged. So, if you don’t mind, stop suggesting I am just led by by my emotions!
Why did I copy and post some old comments on this thread? The first is a link to FAIR, and the others are similarly links to/endorsements of the insidious slur that the victims in Houla are making up their stories, and an example of the very disturbing propensity by some on the left to, as Pulse says in the same post linked to above, blame these victims: ‘Despite the fact that Channel 4 had entered the town the very next day and collected on-camera testimonies from survivors, reactionary outfits like MediaLens, media watchdogs like FAIR, and some left luminaries, including our friend Tariq Ali, started blaming the victims.’
Annie, I actually find yours a relatively moderate voice on Syria compared to those around you unwittingly repeating Ba’athist regime propaganda, but are you saying that in an exchange with the aforementioned ideologues the fact you copied an posted a big chunk of text about how ‘The massacre in Houla is the predictable outcome of Washington’s promotion of these reactionary forces.’ is not an endorsement of this? It certainly looks like it. The article you link to states confidently: ‘Responsibility for the deaths of 108 people massacred in Houla lies not with the Syrian army, but with the Syrian “rebel” forces the US is arming against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a leading German daily… The implications of this revelation go far beyond the atrocity in Houla. They undermine the rotten foundations of the US-led campaign for war with Syria’ That does leave much room for doubt.
Call me naive, but I do not having doubts as to who perpetrated this massacre of innocents: Syrian government forces and militia.
Do I think you were ‘fools’ to be taken in by this lie about Houla? No, it is far more serious than that. Let me give an example to be found on this thread alone. Israel apologist, OlegR is delighted to find such hypocrisy, and I can’t blame him/her. On Mondoweiss, we draw attention to serious human rights abuses perpetrated by the apartheid state of Israel, and the indifference or collusion of other governments, we express compassion and empathy with the victims of this brutal occupation and inhumane siege, we expose the geopolitical machinations that maintain the status quo, and entrench the occupation, etc. Then Assad turns on his own people, bombing whole cities within his own country, and people try to defend themselves, organise, and fight back. Leaving aside the fact that I have never sought to condone any HR abuses committed by the rebels, and am gravely alarmed by cynical foreign meddling, why is the outrage at this Syrian regime horror unleashed against Syrian people so muted, if not largely absent on Mondoweiss? Why does it look like the narrative of blaming the victims is encouraged here, rather than robustly challenged? (I do not speak of you personally Annie).
In the words of Sharif Nashashibi on Guardian CIF recently: Hamas opposes Assad, but some seem more interested in being anti-Israel and anti-US than standing up for human rights. And “it is misguided and offensive to view the suffering of Syrians in terms of whether or not this benefits Israel, the US or the Palestinians.”
For the record, I am not an ‘interventionist’ either – I honestly do not know the solution.
This is not a competition as to who knows Syrian people better and I never meant to suggest that. I mention my background to explain that my opinions are not formed entirely by trawling the Internet.
Oh, as for this: ‘but i do not take swipes at what i perceive as your blind spots in a condescending way’, what is this then if not condescension?
“do you know the meaning or implication of ‘a Manufactured Atrocity’? it doesn’t mean, or imply it wasn’t an atrocity. you’ve set yourself up as the (only) ‘friend’ of the syrian people here as if we just do not care, because our assessment doesn’t jive with yours.. and this is not helpful.” You might have ended that with ‘you poor dear – so naive and emotional’ just to make sure I got the point ;)
So, no this is not personal, this is political.
Maybe the problem with your analysis Eleanor is that it AIN’T “personal” but “political”.
are you saying that in an exchange with the aforementioned ideologues the fact you copied an posted a big chunk of text about how ‘The massacre in Houla is the predictable outcome of Washington’s promotion of these reactionary forces.’ is not an endorsement of this? It certainly looks like it
this is about as far as i got. maybe i will review the remainder of your comment tomorrow. maybe not. there were about 10 things i noticed before this , but let me make one thing abundantly clear. i firmly believe the massacre in Houla was the predictable outcome of Washington’s promotion of the ‘reactionary forces’. regardless of who carried out this crime. the idea that you would interpret this as an endorsement of this massacre is so foreign to me it makes me question the value of continuing any communication with you on this topic.
‘you seem to take it very personal’ is not an accusation, it is an observation.
Not an ‘endorsement of the massacre’, Annie – come on! An endorsement of this analysis:
‘Responsibility for the deaths of 108 people massacred in Houla lies not with the Syrian army, but with the Syrian “rebel” forces the US is arming against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a leading German daily… The implications of this revelation go far beyond the atrocity in Houla. They undermine the rotten foundations of the US-led campaign for war with Syria’
eleanor, don’t give me this “oh come on” bs, scroll up and read your own text. i already addressed you.
are you saying that in an exchange with the aforementioned ideologues the fact you copied an posted a big chunk of text about how ‘The massacre in Houla is the predictable outcome of Washington’s promotion of these reactionary forces.’ is not an endorsement of this?
i answered you, you’ve completely ignore my response, now you are moving the goalposts to the analysis of the article i did not even reference and making conclusions about what i do and do not endorse. you’ve engaged from the beginning of this thread as if you are setting traps for people. you did it on your first comment. i am not obliged to answer you, i did it once at your request and you ignored my response. you act as tho you are on a fishing expedition and of course you have total certainty about who committed this massacre (which frankly i find absurd).
for your review:
let me make one thing abundantly clear. i firmly believe the massacre in Houla was the predictable outcome of Washington’s promotion of the ‘reactionary forces’. regardless of who carried out this crime.
not interesting enough for you? moving on to your next target?
i responded to a link a poster left, i engaged, i copied a section i liked, i thought it was a worthy article, and here you are 2 months later chewing a bone harping on a part of the article someone else linked to pressuring me about an endorsement of the analysis?
i’m done with you eleanor. done, out of respect for the site and only because you are a contributor here.
Really bizarre response, Annie. You are not making any sense. You linked to an article, and urged others on the thread to read it, that explicitly said the massacre was perpetrated by the rebels. Right or wrong?
I read this an an endorsement of the sentiments of this article. If you tell me I am wrong, fine I will accept that, although it is not entirely convincing, I will admit.
I continue to believe it is shocking the extents to which some commentators – as exposed by Pulse – are going to try to throw doubt on the testimonies of the victims of the Houla massacre.
But then you deliberately misunderstood me and wrote ‘the idea that you would interpret this as an endorsement of this massacre is so foreign to me it makes me question the value of continuing any communication with you on this topic.’
Now, you are ‘done’ with me. So much for not taking things ‘personally’. A shame. This debate is important.
@ Eleanor
“”are you saying that in an exchange with the aforementioned ideologues the fact you copied an posted a big chunk of text about how ‘The massacre in Houla is the predictable outcome of Washington’s promotion of these reactionary forces.’ is not an endorsement of this? It certainly looks like it”"
I’ve just been watching the conversation, but truly I think you’re losing it a bit…..how you get that annie was ‘endorsing’ is beyond me.
“Do I think you were ‘fools’ to be taken in by this lie about Houla? No, it is far more serious than that. Let me give an example to be found on this thread alone. Israel apologist, OlegR is delighted to find such hypocrisy, and I can’t blame him/her. On Mondoweiss, we draw attention to serious human rights abuses perpetrated by the apartheid state of Israel, and the indifference or collusion of other governments, we express compassion and empathy with the victims of this brutal occupation and inhumane siege, we expose the geopolitical machinations that maintain the status quo, and entrench the occupation, etc. Then Assad turns on his own people, bombing whole cities within his own country, and people try to defend themselves, organise, and fight back. Leaving aside the fact that I have never sought to condone any HR abuses committed by the rebels, and am gravely alarmed by cynical foreign meddling, why is the outrage at this Syrian regime horror unleashed against Syrian people so muted, if not largely absent on Mondoweiss? “…….Eleanor
Who’s muting the abuse? As far as I see the argument is about whether or not the rebels are actually simeon pure Syrian rebels or the revolt was sparked and aided by outsiders. And even if they were just Syrian rebels are they after something better than Assad or just want to replace him with some other oppresive regime.
Enough has been proven about Saudi and others aiding the rebels to know there’s more to the Syrian revolt than discontented Syrians.
If the Saudis in particular are supporting a rebellion against a ME ruler then there’s something in it for them. They don’t fund democracy, human rights and all that jazz in the ME and not even the US can make them…if it even wanted to.
I know I’m no expert but this hasn’t looked or smelled like a pure ‘people’s popular revolt’ to me.
eleanor, on review (i was writing at 4 am before sleeping on my last response to you) i see the other article you have cited from the comment 2 months ago was not the one you initially copy pasted in the first comment on this thread which was the one riyadh linked to. sorry, i didn’t go back and review the old thread thoroughly enough prior to my response. iow i did link to another article. i do not have the time right now to review either of these articles (gotta get another draft up on the ‘savage saga’) but i am coming back here to clear that up, and to tell you i did hear you when you wrote “you deliberately misunderstood me”.
thanks for demonstrating to me again why i made the right decision in choosing non engagement with you over this issue.
Annie, am bit confused now, but my apologies if I attributed wrong article to you – which might explain why you misunderstood me. Am unsure why you have taken this tone with me now – I hope we can just agree to disagree. At one point you seemed to be twisting meaning of my words. And no doubt you have the same complaint about me. I copied and pasted a thread the contents and links of which I felt illustrated point about susceptibility to stories based on regime propaganda. You just happened to on that thread. This is not personal. I hope we can keep this civil now
what you call my ‘tone’ it’s me avoiding a mudslinging situation. i think people can disagree about what’s going on without ever assuming people are deliberately twisting another’s meaning. i honestly misunderstood your meaning and yes i do agree with the concept “‘The massacre in Houla is the predictable outcome of Washington’s promotion of these reactionary forces.’ ”
which doesn’t mean to say i have definitely concluded who carried out the massacre, it means i think the US has been covertly supporting regime change via destabilization in syria for years and the predictable outcome of that support which includes funding violent nefarious forces are these kinds of massacres EVEN IF they are carried out by the regime. supporting violent solutions, brings violent retributions. yes, i blame my country for the escalation in violence.
when you write things like
it presupposes the ‘testimonies’ are honest, that no one would lie, that everything you hear from the alleged victims is true or as they perceived to be true, and only one side is honest. this is very naive imho. whereas i think we are in an info battleground and i take everything with a grain of salt so ‘throwing doubt’ on everything one hears is cautionary, common sense and the best approach. if that shocks you so be it.
i would very much like to agree to disagree. but no matter how much i may disagree with you i will not be accusing you of purposely twisting my meaning or having intent to misunderstand me. there’s no point in that.
as i mentioned before it was very late when i read and responded to your earlier comments and i apparently misunderstood what you meant by ‘this’, as being the massacre itself. that’s how it read to me. so let’s bury the hatchet. if it is any consolation to you i completely disagree with phil about lots of this ‘humanitarian war’ stuff.
/it presupposes the ‘testimonies’ are honest, that no one would lie, that everything you hear from the alleged victims is true or as they perceived to be true, and only one side is honest. this is very naive imho. whereas i think we are in an info battleground and i take everything with a grain of salt so ‘throwing doubt’ on everything one hears is cautionary, common sense and the best approach. if that shocks you so be it./
Sorry to intervene Annie just a short question
do you apply the same rigorous logic you demonstrated here to, say Palestinian eye witness accounts or maybe reports from various Human rights NGOs that receive their information from Palestinians ?
American says: “…If the Saudis in particular are supporting a rebellion against a ME ruler then there’s something in it for them. They don’t fund democracy, human rights and all that jazz in the ME and not even the US can make them…if it even wanted to…”
Let’s just set aside whatever it is claimed the Saudis are doing or not doing.
At this stage, they’d be crazy not to intervene. So would Turkey, Jordan, and every other player in the region.
Something is going to emerge in Syria — and whatever it is, you don’t want it to be pointed at you. So the various powers in the region have no alternative to intervention.
…which takes me to what is becoming my point. Intervention is a given — what would be best would be if that intervention can be coordinated among as many players as possible. That will reduce the final death toll — and it should produce an outcome that more people can live with than otherwise.
annie, your reply is right on the money. Sorry I was mean to Eleanor, and was all deranged-like. But sometimes I have this problem of mysterious empathy with those who suffer or suffered sometimes far away in space or even time. From whence it comes I do not know. But I do know that what the US is trying to do – with Israel’s proding, and cheer-leading from reactionary gulf monarchies – to the Syrian people is horrible. There is an attempt to actually break up the country – get it mired in civil war – the Syrian people know it when they see it and that’s why they are not rallying behind the mercenaries, regardless of how they may feel about the Assad government and the lack of open democracy in their country. It is the unfeeling ghastly empire at its worst, just as Keith says.
Here is something I happened to catch in passing the other day from PBS news hour – a surprisingly more nuanced discussion than what we have been fed: From PBS new hour
link to pbs.org
One quotation from Bassam Haddad of George Mason Univ.
“… in society, there are still large pockets, if not very large pockets, of support, not necessarily for the Assad regime, but for a prevention of a fall into the abyss.
What a lot of the reporting I think has been ignoring, especially from the West, is that Syria is falling apart not just as a regime, but as a country. And that is actually the biggest tragedy that I think is being shoved aside, in favor of focusing on cliche-ish things such as dictatorship and democracy in a situation where even if the Assad regime falls we are looking at a very, very tough process of reconstructing the country.
And certain parties benefit, and these are the parties we should actually look at, including conservative Arab states, some European states, and, of course, the United States.”
Only at the end one country’s name is conspicuously absent from the list of beneficiaries of Syria’s break-up. I wonder why it’s omitted. Or maybe I don’t.
my take on it too.
danaa, please do not ever apologize to me for seeming ‘all deranged-like’. please let’s not go there. you’re not deranged.
May Allah save us from western liberals trying to protect us.
I support neither the regime nor the rebels. In fact, I have been against the Syrian regime in 1976 on the day the Syrians entered Lebanon to occupy us. But what puzzles me is that far too many of my liberal friends are eager to jump into bed with Salafis and al-Qaeda types, repeating our tragic history with the mujahideen in Afghanistan. Not only will this cause more suffering in Syria, perhaps turning it into another Iraq, but will also result in blowback to westerners. In that light, supporting the rebels as you appear to do is not a smart move and it’s also not a smart move based on their actual behavior in Syria – beheadings, extra-judicial executions, throwing people of rooftops, chopping off fingers, etc. Far too many of my western liberal friends have fallen in love with romantic notions they are projecting onto Syria, supporting groups whose beliefs and values are far away from their own and making the mistake of thinking that this will actually lead to good and desirable outcomes. Your enemy’s enemy is not your friend and if you think that the fundamentalist Islamists taking part in this are your friends then you are a fool who has not learnt from history.
My own view is that the rebels are actually responsible for delaying the downfall of the Assad regime. In the early weeks, popular support was coalescing against the regime from a broad spectrum of the population of all sects and ethnic groups. My view is that, like Egypt and Tunisia, the regime would not have been able to withstand this assault on its legitimacy if it had been allowed to continue without militarisation. The militarisation by religious types, funded from outside and supplemented by foreign fighters who brought in al-Qaeda flags, talked Sharia law and threatened to kill/ethnically cleanse minorities began to alienate people, as did the above-mentioned killings. It fed regime propaganda about terrorists and played to the regime’s strength, which is its military. It has caused many who initially supported the protests to back off. This is part of the reason why we are seeing such longevity of the regime and only a trickle rather than a flood of defections.
Inanna:
You probably have the sanest take of us all. There was indeed a way to implement reforms and Assad would have been gone to pasture at some point, and perhaps, the Syrians themselves would have eventually gotten to decide what they wanted for their country. But the US – all pepped up on Libya model and with fires stoked by Israel’s time table to “get Iran”, they couldn’t wait. Hence the militarization of the conflict and the deliberate attempt to overthrow the “regime” by force. Someone, somewhere had the brilliant idea that the ‘revolution” needed to be accelerated and that ‘speed” was of the essence. Clearly, it wasn’t the Syrian people, who probably realized time was on their side, especially as Assad himself seemed to be opening up to reforms before all hell broke loose..
To use historical anecdotes – France chose the quick revolution and the result caused endless misery for decades to all. The English went slower, but the outcome – displacing and dis-empowering the monarchy – came just as soon and, a few turn-arounds and round-abouts notwithstanding – with one heck of a lot less blood shed. But then the English did not have the same problem with foreign powers trying to use their country as a stage from which to launch either empire and/or crazy zionist megalomaniac jihadist alliances forward.
Very well stated. And so much more succintly than my entire dissertation. One can only hope that more deluded “liberals” will care to take note of your words.
As it happened, all of them were relying on a single article appearing in a German publication, written by an author who never visited Houla or met a survivor. This was no innocent mistake
The old maxim still applies, “The first casualty of war is Truth.”
I cited a report carried by Josh Landis’ Syria blog that relied upon eyewitness accounts collected from refugees from the Houla region by members of the Monastery of St. James in Qara, Syria. Details about that and other recent rebel attacks that were reportedly repackaged and blamed on the government were supplied by a Mother Agnès-Mariam de la Croix of the St. James Monastery, not a German newspaper report. link to mondoweiss.net
Contradictory subjective evidence really only establishes the need for a formal forensic criminal investigation. Not more long distance guess work.
Thanks for making the link between this nun, and the German media report, which informed reactionary pieces peddling regime propaganda that the rebels were behind it.
See below for my link to article about the nun:
‘Nun on Irish visit accused of peddling ‘regime lies’ about crisis in Syria’
Thanks for making the link between this nun, and the German media report, which informed reactionary pieces peddling regime propaganda that the rebels were behind it.
The report that you cited confirms that Mother Agnes Mariam works in Syria and that she made accusations during a visit to Dublin and Belfast Ireland. It contains subjective evidence, obtained by interviewing Fr Paolo Dall’Oglio, who had spent time with opposition forces in several rebel held parts of Syria. He challenges Mother Agnes Mariam character and account. There is nothing there which says she obtained her information from a German press report, rather than eye witness Syrian accounts.
The notion that the UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) confirmed the original reports is an overstatement. It found credible and ample evidence that all of the parties to the conflict had committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, including torture and extrajudicial executions. It said that it felt that the violations and abuses committed by anti-Government armed groups did not reach the gravity, frequency and scale of those committed by Government forces and the Shabbiha, but that the lack of access to the country significantly hampered the commission’s ability to fulfil its mandate.
The report didn’t discuss the possibility of a black flag operation that might have deceived eye witnesses, although that is what Mother Agnes alleged. In fact the report doesn’t mention Mother Agnes at all. It mentions unsuccessful attempts to interview two anonymous witnesses mentioned in the government of Syria’s investigation and some Syrian and Russian press reports. It is based on assumptions that all of the Shabbiha fighters are carrying out government orders and policies, “Although the nature, composition and hierarchy of the Shabbiha remains unclear”. It wasn’t allowed to conduct any on-scene investigations in the country at all. It’s findings of fact related to Houla were confined to accidental or careless acts, not to the deliberate killings involved in the massacre:
– See A-HRC-21-50.doc link to ohchr.org
When there’s a dispute over the material facts, like there is this case, the trier of fact needs to have evidence from an on scene criminal investigation that actually ties the government to particular groups of Shabbiha fighters or a least ties some identifiable group directly to the crimes. The report of the Commission of Inquiry does 1) contain ample evidence that crimes were committed by both sides; 2) prima facie evidence that some crimes were committed by both sides; and 3) some very useful circumstantial and/or exculpatory evidence. But it didn’t fulfil its mission in those areas (yet) with regard to the deliberate Al-Houla massacre.
P.S. That should have read:
The final report will not be completed and turned-in until mid September. So some of these apparent shortcomings may be overcome by then.
Hi Hostage, if I’m not mistaken the German media source FAZ quotes Mother Agnes Mariam to back up its claims. Think this is right link to translation of a German FAZ piece but on phone tiny screen so struggling with links: link to moonofalabama.org
Do not dispute findings re. HR abuses in both sides.
Eleanor, you’ve got your sources all mixed up. MoA is a great site but a pro-Assad one, so you’d have to look elsewhere to find something with which to disparage the Syrian regime. Mother Agnes is one of the site’s saints. On Houla, FAZ is giving the benefit of the doubt to the regime. The eyewitness report it cites describes the assailants as bearded with shaved heads, which describe to a certain level what a Salafist would look like. On the other hand, it could have been regime people masquerading as Salafist rebels. This is why no one really knows at this point which group did the massacre. Take Annie’s advice and don’t side with anyone until the truth comes out.
Hi Hostage, if I’m not mistaken the German media source FAZ quotes Mother Agnes Mariam to back up its claims.
My point is that it’s the job of the fact finding expedition to actually gather testimony and depose the witnesses. All these reports which say that Mother Agnes has been discredited because another witness told a newspaper that she is an agent of the government and a liar are all fine an good. I still get nervous when there’s no sworn deposition from either Fr Paolo Dall’Oglio or Mother Agnes Mariam. It’s okay to assume facts that are not in evidence at this stage, because this isn’t a trial. But the UN report doesn’t really present very compelling evidence one way or the other about the identity of the perpetrators of this particular massacre.
Confirming details, like “the unidentified perpetrators wore red arm bands”, doesn’t eliminate the possibility of disguised defectors from the Free Syrian Army, & etc. It doesn’t constitute proof the perpetrators were following orders from the government when they carried out massacres. At this point the UN is establishing the need for an Ad Hoc Tribunal or the ICC Prosecutor to conduct a proper investigation. This report would form the basis of a referral.
Hi Walid, I know what MoA is. I linked to it because it has translation of FAZ article that cites the nun – no coincidence that they both try to pin massacre on rebels. I have no reason to doubt Father Paolo’s integrity regardless of repeated smears, so his word is good enough for me on Mother Agnes Mariam – particularly as her rhetoric is reminiscent of regime propaganda.
Eleanor, both sides are lying through their teeth and both side are committing atrocities, especially in the killing of civilians. For the past 18 months, we have been seeing manufactured news from insurgency’s side while the regime has been telling us that there’s really nothing serious happening in the country other than a few scattered skirmishes and that everything is under control. During this time over 20,000 people were killed and hundreds of thousands refugees have fled across the borders to Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. Nothing is forcing you to take sides at this point in time.
Walid, you are being a bit unfair describing MoA as “pro-Assad”. Taking the posts as a whole – over time – I’d conclude it has a consistently anti -interventionist flair, and generally takes a dim view of the “humanitarian” justifications provided for intervention. That it may appear to be “pro-Assad” is only natural given that it does a perception battle against a huge and powerful collective of military, money and media propaganda tools, all arrayed not only against Assad but FOR toppling Assad as part of a ‘regime change”. When I try to do my small part fighting against the consensus manufacturing factory, I too may appear “pro-Assad”, as do you when you try to highlight the religious composition and nature of the ‘rebel’ forces.
I expect the MoA will take an issue with the “pro-Assad” characterization, even if it seems to root for the government forces. Frankly, a decisive victory by the Syrian mitary over the hodge-podge assemblage of forces spawned and supported by the neo-colonialist designs of empire (cf Keith’s analysis above) seems by far to be the lesser evil for the Syrian people. The alternative, should the empire succeed in its ‘regime change” is a Syria broken up along sectarian lines with a strong pivot towards islamism and continued strife into the foreseeable future. This would please israel and the US no end, as it will pave the way to take on Iran. If one were to look at this from the viewpoint of an ordinary Syrian family in, say, damascus or Aleppo – what is the better outcome for them?
I know that MoA has assembled quite an eclectic group of commenters, but it’s one of the few places one can go to get information that is attempting to stay detangled from the the MSM.
BTW, the most recent post is about the hypocricy of the west’s feigned indignation of the sentence metted out in Russia to the Pussy Riot band. The same west that seems to condone the persecution of Assange by a hyper-ventilating US establishment. The line taken on this issue is consistent with the tack over Syria, though one could, again, accuse ‘b’ of being pro-Putin or pro-orthodox church.
What MoA does best IMO is de-construction of the western narrative. This kind of exercise – with all the commentary it engenders from every side, is bound to be messy.
Regards to you and yours.
Danaa, I’m aware that MoA is more about being anti-interventionist than about being pro-Assad. In fact, it’s also against imperialism, colonialism and all the other isms and I think it’s a good site, but for the needs of the discussion with Eleanor here, I categorized it as pro-Assad because in its tenacious effort to speak out against imperialism in all its ugly forms happening in Syria, it stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that Assad and his team may have misbehaved in the past. Maybe the site doesn’t want to dilute its anti-imperialistic stance by getting into the Baathists’ dirty laundry. Nary a negative is ever mentioned about the regime. This is why I suggested to Elinor that if she’s looking for something with which to disparage Assad, she wouldn’t find it at MoA as she tried doing with the Mother Agnes and FAZ issues. On the other hand, if she’d be looking for generally good and comprehenive reading other than on Syria, MoA is a great place, but she already knows that.
Thanks for the kind holday well-wishes and I wish you the same.
And a recent piece by former CIA officer Phil Giraldi in The American Conservative said, no doubt relying on people Giraldi still knows in U.S. intelligence, that U.S. intelligence reports relying on signals intelligence (eavesdropped conversations) state that many of the atrocities in Syria have been committed by the insurgents.
Eleanor–
As a total non-expert I tend to agree with you and also with some of your opponents. That is, I think both sides in the Syrian war have committed atrocities and some peaceful protestors have probably allied with some cold-blooded killers (Palestinians would understand this), that the regime is murderous and that outsiders (including the US) are jumping in with bad motives, etc…. My impression is that some ordinary Syrians hate the regime with a passion, while others support it because they fear what the fundamentalists on the rebel side will do if they win. I have no idea how many would fall into each category.
But anyway, I specifically agree with your warning about lefties seeming to side with the regime. However, purely as a tactical sort of thing and take this from someone who’s been there, it’s better to make that point without getting into the specifics of who said what in the comments section at this blog. Once you do that it was guaranteed to become personal and the normal give and take (well, that’s hard to find in a political argument anyway) where people concede some points and argue for others just disappears in the quest to discredit the other person.
Hi Donald, I think your advice is in general good. I now see that my initial comment provided a distraction for the regime apologists who would otherwise merrily keep on spouting their usual nonsense in the guise of ‘reserving judgement’ on the massacres. The problem is that when it comes to Mondoweiss and coverage of Syrian conflict there are slim pickings. I first approached the issue a number of months ago in a post, assuming there would be the same level of support for the Syrian uprising as Palestinian resistance. I got quite a shock. The kind of rhetoric I found in the comment sections to mine and Annie’s infrequent posts appalled me. I am repeatedly called naïve by commenters on here. So be it. The final straw was the response to a post by Allison and her Syrian co-author. The comments I chose as a sample tho were specifically endorsing or insinuating validity of the transparent propaganda about Houla, and I asked ‘How did it come to this’ on Mondoweiss?
Eleanor, you didn’t comment at all on Allison’s and her Syrian co-author’s piece. Tareq al-Samman was pushing an anti-Assad propaganda and several here took him to task on it, but this didn’t mean that everyone approved of what Assad had been doing. You said that the final straw was the response to a post there. Which response was that?
Eleanor,
When you call posters, who would like more evidence presented to them, “regime apologists”, you open yourself up to be called ‘Empire Apologist’.
Amazing that you’re quite comfortable getting into bed with the Salafist and Blackwater mercenaries currently killing and destabilizing Syria.
Your biggest mistake in understanding the mideast, however, is equating the Palestinian struggle with the current Syrian strife. I can’t believe you’ve got an MA in mideastern studies and you can’t tell the difference between one Arab country’s spleen from the other.
Oh they’re all Arabs so they must ALL have the same set of problematic conditions, right?
We’re watching, before our very own eyes, a viscous and frenzied attempt at breaking up the larger mideast region, where most of the victims are civilian, and here you are whining that not everyone on MW supports this dastardly plan like you clearly do.
And why do you think there’s still dictators and monarchies in the mideast in the 21st century? Because westerners like you keep interfering, giving rise to the need for local iron fists.
Eleanor:
I now see that my initial comment provided a distraction for the regime apologists who would otherwise merrily keep on spouting their usual nonsense in the guise of ‘reserving judgement’ on the massacres.
Hostage has done a pretty thorough job in showing that there is no definitive evidence either way in determining “who” committed the massacres at Houla. You don’t acknowledge this. You should.
Moreover, it seems a priori more likely that the FSA committed the atrocities. The reasoning is as follows: The rebels can’t hope to overcome the Syrian military all by themselves. They need Western help, (or at least someone’s help.) The only way to garner such help is through sympathy and all the commensurate support that that engenders. This is all the more important because the rebels have no obvious cred or popular support. To distract and simplfy — to manage the narrative — benefits the FSA greatly.
By contrast, Assad had nothing to gain by Houla and much to lose.
So without knowing another thing about the incident, I would bet it was the FSA who dun it. They had far more incentive to undertake such a heinous crime. Am I spewing nonsense here? -N49.
The only way to garner such help is through sympathy and all the commensurate support that that engenders. This is all the more important because the rebels have no obvious cred or popular support.
as i mentioned in one of the syria watch posts here,there were numerous massacres carried out on the eve of important UN meetings/votes. i fail to see th logic of assad ordering massacres on such occasions. counter productive to the max. whereas the opposition refuses talks. hmm. something just doesn’t ad up. the logic factor seems to be missing from eleanor’s analysis.
i read a term tonight i had never read before: link to dailykos.com
regime apologists who would otherwise merrily keep on spouting their usual nonsense in the guise of ‘reserving judgement’ on the massacres.
jesus eleanor it just doesn’t stop w/you.
specifically endorsing or insinuating validity of the transparent propaganda about Houla
and what if? have you asked yourself that? what if it it wasn’t the regime who did it? are you then, specifically endorsing or insinuating validity of the transparent propaganda about Houla?
what if i said you were an apologist who merrily keeps on spouting your usual nonsense in the guise of ‘supporting the syrian people’?
are you addicted to personal attacks, or do you just think you are the only person here with brains and judgement? what if you are wrong eleanor? did that even occur to you? and if you are wrong, does that mean you endorse propaganda?
Annie, interestingly, the Hatay camps in a remote part of Turkey discussed in the DailyKos were set up to with full medicak facilities to receive about 20,000 refugees in the first month of insurgency when only 265 refugee had crossed into Turkey in the spring of 2011. How was that for great planning? The Turks were more aware than the Syrians of what was coming.
as nato insiders that doesn’t surprise me walid
Hostage has done a pretty thorough job in showing that there is no definitive evidence either way in determining “who” committed the massacres at Houla.
At this stage those particular conflicting reports are almost irrelevant. The information that is available indicates that both sides have adopted policies and practices that amount to war crimes, and crimes against humanity, including the use of torture and extrajudicial executions.
The deaths that have resulted from accidental or reckless attacks attributable to both sides are just as incriminating as deliberate ones, once a routine pattern and practice of criminal negligence emerges. The body count in this conflict puts the leadership on both sides way past that point. Attempting to conduct a long distance criminal investigation in the middle of a war won’t meet international standards anyway and you can already send leaders like Assad and his chief adversaries to jail for life, many times over, on the basis of what we already know about the circumstances and the excess or disproportionate casualties. That conclusion doesn’t require any guesswork.
It seems to boil down to a question of which anonymous sources you find more “compelling,” “riveting,” “persuasive.” And that in turn is at least partially a function of which is filmed by a camera crew with higher production values.
But while you are emoting, don’t forget to use your brains as well. What would the regime stand to gain?
Phil,
You do know that the so-called Syrian rebels, with their saudi backed alqaida friends, blackwater mercenaries, the CIA and the mossad, have been known to use Syrian army uniforms when attacking/operating in Syrian villages, right? And if you know anything about the Syrian Baathist regime, you would know that one reason why they’ve been in power for so long is because they’re secular ideologues who have maintained a relative peace between the different religious factions, including peace with the majority sunnis – that sectarianism is the Baathists’ absolute ultimate poison. So why would they want to stoke sectarianism, ask yourself please. That religious dude whom you call “highly articulate” is a bold-faced liar, an ‘articulate’ propagandist, paid for by the Saudi regime. They have thousands of them on their payroll.
You do know that since the days of Tahrir square, only a fool would believe anything Aljazeera has to say about the Arab world, especially the Arab countries considered enemies of Saudi Arabia and USA, right?
I honestly can’t believe you’re gingerly skipping down propaganda lane right behind your favorite Syrian sunni cleric (read Saudi money).
Exactly right Taxi. Not only does this post betray a lack of knowledge about Syria and the region, it’s also taking FSA propaganda and using it uncritically.
I actually was interested in a response
OlegR says: “I actually was interested in a response”
Twice I’ve read that now. It’s cracked me up both times.
That’s because you don’t actually understand it…
Phil, I am assuming that your account here of the superior production values in this made-for-western-consumption piece, this product of the consent-manufacturing industry, is somewhat at least tongue-in-cheek. The very sleekness of the production by the Qatar supported station – which obviously shills for toppling Assad – is what makes one suspicious. Is that a a harbinger of the new disinformation campaign by the bad guys, now that the “rebels” and “terrorists’ amateur videos have turned out to be fakes and/or backfired due to the reveling in violence?
I think we all know what Syria is all about and why the western powers are so interested in turning Syria into a battle zone and weakening its national structure. It’s enough to know who supports this campaign – a collusion between Hillary, Bolton, Mccain, Krystol, Feith and the many-many members of the Lobby-that-never-sleeps.
It is truly a horror show what’s being visited upon the Syrian people. To imagine that anyone from the left or anyone who understands why israel is 100% behind this campaign can confuse what’s happening in Syria with a popular uprising is galling. The people of Syria were certainly better off under Assad than they would ever be under the crazy terrorists being sent in armed to the hilt, or for that matter, under some ultra-sectarian sunni ‘revolutionary” group.
Only now we are beginning to understand why certain reactionary monarchies are so opposed to the baatists. Syria was, in fact, pretty tolerant of various religions and sects and was largely secular – a rather more enlightened regime in some ways than certain gulf countries (like all of them?). It was also allied with Iran, supported (eventually and not always cwjhole-heartedly) the resistance forces of Hezbollah and has styeadfastedly opposed israeli colonialism – if not as actively as some would have preferred.. Sure, all people in Syria did not fare as well as they wanted. Alawites and certain Sunni sects had an advantage. But so do jewish people in the US in certain professions, and that’s quite a small minority, by all accounts. what we are now also learning about Syria is that it was a very diverse country demographically with minorities – including Allawites – adding to over 40%. And of the Sunni majority, several groups are and were very strong supporters of the government – for good reason. If that had not been the case, there would have been a lot stronger support for a rebellion than the lack-luster scattered, rallies we have seen last year. Yes, some people were suppressed and discrimination was rampant. And no, it wasn’t a democracy exactly. But there was also no real popular revolt. There was no Tahrir square. And not because it was suppressed – it just never really materialized.
But – this is what we need to ask – in the context of the Middle East – were any in Syria – even the most oppressed – any worse off than the Shiites in Bahrain? the Palestinians in the west bank? were any people in Syria herded into internment camps like the Gazans? did the people have any less rights than their Jordanian bretherns – of whatever sect? what of the revolts in Yemen? what did they get other than Saleh-light? and an admonition from the UN to not oppose their oppressors?
And, come to think of it – do we really enjoy such great rights in the US? do we get to choose our government freely or are we just given a slate of republican/democrat tweedle-dee/tweedle-dams to rally behind? aren’t most of us going to vote for Obama because the alternative is so much worse? do we have a single candidate that we could honestly support as representative of our convictions? and if there’s a decent representative has he/she not being forced to sell the country’s interests to israel for a few dollars of campaign money? and should they choose not to take the big lobby moneies does any candidate stand a chance in hell? what democracy have we got – really? what of the fate of the 15% black population in the US shunted into ghettos, carted off into for-profit prisons at the least infraction, with zero hope of decent education or job prospects? we do have quite a few of our own deeply oppressed minorities in this country – many of whom live worse lives with far less hope than many minorities in Syria who at least have access to half-way decent health care and housing. Look at how the Palestinian refugees fared in Syria – not all that bad, based on what we know. And Syria took in huge numbers of Iraqi refugees escaping from the US Empire’s punitive action that tore their country to shreds.
So, you say, but in the US we have free speech. If that right be illustrated by the fact that I get to rant to my heart’s content on a blog dedicated to palestinian rights, then you’d have a point. But what of free speech that actually has import? whay MSM represents most of us? who out there in the MSM dare speak out honestly about the obvious campaign of chipping at civil liberties unbdertaken by this adminsitration? yes, there is Glenn Greenwald and a few like him, but has he succeeded is persuading a single admonistration official to relent on their secret surveillance?
So in the end, we need to look at things more soberly, meaning, we need to count the eggs we actually have hope of seeing them hatch. And it isn’t too many. And in the end we have rather more limited rights than we think we do because theoretical rights and ranting rights do not policy change. But that being said we are happy to live in a state of security so we can, in fact, shop till we drop, and we get to rant at the end of the day. But so did lots of Syrians. they just had fewer malls and ranting platforms. And some people suffered fate worse than Bradley Manning here. Maybe even a 1000 or 2 were quite maligned and some have died and some were tortured. Still, is that reason enough to tear their country apart? anyone can possibly imagine that the sectarian strife fanned by US, Israel and friends is going to bring more justice or peace or democracy to that country?
I actually think that among so-called “Tyrants” Assad was far from the worst. In fact, if there was a priority order for “regime change” from the worst to the best. his would be far, far from the top, though perhaps not quite close to Iceland. So, to my admittedly not fully informed eyes, it just seems that Syria is not exactly the place to start, if a better world, with liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness for all is what we really want.
A round of applause everybody please.
I haven’t read such a wonderful apologetic rant on behalf of a dictatorship
in a long long time.
OlegR
Did you actually read what Daana wrote, before dipping your poison pen in your bloody inkwell? You are so fast delivering a triumphant put down, that you may have understood each sentence ( reading comprehension first grade ) without understanding the the whole comment (reading comprehension secondary grade ).
As for understanding the anguish in Daana’s comment as to the death, destruction, impoverishment and destruction that bloody civil war, stoked by foreign powers will bring on Syrians – I have no hope that you will ever understand.
I actually don’t think that you can.
Oleg,
You do know that your precious Apartheid israel is in bed with every Arab dictator except the Syrian one, right?
And because Assad won’t suck on your dubree like the other Arab dictators do, you’re mad as hell about it – mad mad mad like this:
link to huffingtonpost.com
Has it occurred to you that some of us are against both foreign intervention AND dictatorships?
You Lebanese Taxi ?
/Has it occurred to you that some of us are against both foreign intervention AND dictatorships?/
What are you for then , what do you think of the Syrian role
in Lebanese state , how do you judge it ?
No I ain’t Lebanese, but I’m a big visiting fan and I enjoy going there, pointing southwards and laughing.
And I’d rather poke my eyeball with a fork than discuss Syrian-Lebanese relations with zionist ethnic-cleansers from Russia.
@Danaa
Well done. I’m convinced.
“The people of Syria were certainly better off under Assad than they would ever be under the crazy terrorists being sent in armed to the hilt, or for that matter, under some ultra-sectarian sunni ‘revolutionary” group.”
To turn your argument on its face, lets posit the following: the Palestinians in the West Bank and inside Israel are better off than arab muslims elsewhere in the Muslim world because of Israel’s highly developed economy, culture et al…. unlike those pesky Islamists.
Is this the ‘argument’ you are making? The Sunnis are better off under his eminence Assad because he will protect the Palestinians, the secular Muslims and the like(unless he’s bombing them of course).
You look at the prism about Israel’s influence in Syria, or how they will be helped by this outcome or that outcome in Syria, but how about the prism of the majority of the Syrian population. I realize the conflict in Syria is nuanced and their are foreign Jihadists entering Syria as we speak, but isn’t Assad and his Shabiha clowns the least bit responsible for the tragedy that is Syria?
By your own logic, wasn’t the average Egyptian better off under Mubarak since his wife loved opera??? and he protected the minorities just a tad??? Or that doesn’t count because Mubarak upheld a peace treaty with Israel. So he was a bastard and had to go, but Assad is a proud rejectionist of Israel, so let him shell another 25,000 of his own countrymen, since his wife Asma is quite fashionably chic. I got it now.
Excellent commentary, Danaa.
@ Danaa
Wow! Thanks for that writeup! Very enlightening for those of us far from the scene.
There’s no question that break up of Iran, Iraq and Syra is in interest of neoconservatists. I believe that it is not in the interest of any one nation, but that is in the interest of people who will make money out of the natural resources of Middle East.
Afghanistan is a good example of what can be achieved.
After the Second World War it became a country with a reasonably well functioning government and administration that was able to support its people in the way that afghanis nowadays can only dream about.
In the absence of well functioning administration of the country you end up looking into the tribe for protection and to religious organisations for support in poverty. The similar thing unfolded in Iraq after Americans destroyed (disbanded) military, police and majority of the country administration.
It appears that the similar fate is being prepared forcibly for Syria.
Once you have Middle East broken up into individual tribes all you have to do is to play an English game of divide and rule.
Tribes can only offer protection against other tribes. They have absolutely no chance against mercenaries serving large international multi-million pound companies and against armies of the Advanced Countries, like Western Countries, including Israel.
Above tribes there will be space for few obscenely rich families who will get cut from westerners who will rob their countries’ resources (think Shah of Iran, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Royal families).
“Afghanistan is a good example of what can be achieved.
After the Second World War it became a country with a reasonably well functioning government and administration that was able to support its people in the way that afghanis nowadays can only dream about…”
…ah ha’ ma doots.
First, I was there in 1978. Charming it was. Developed it wasn’t.
Second, the little I know suggests that the government managed to get along by keeping the Russians and the US in competition. I’d guess that they erred slightly too much to the Soviet side — with the results we’ve since seen.
It’s become a hideous disaster. However, whether it was ever in a reasonably secure equilibrium is another matter.
Facts about Al Jazeera on Syria:
1) Al Jazeera is owned by the government of Qatar.
2) The government of Qatar has been arming factions among the Syrian government’s opponents.
3) Employees of Al Jazeera have resigned because they claim that they have been pressured to shape their coverage of Syria to fit the narrative of Qatar’s government.
However skilled they are at producing programs, those Al Jazeera employees who have remained are well-aware of who butters their bread and how much leeway they have in covering different parts of the Middle East.
Rusty Pipes, ironically, the only media providing some truth out of Syria is none other than al-Mayadeen, the new Arab satellite news network that just started operating. It’s managed by Ghassan Bin Jiddo that quit Jazeera after 18 years (from the days it was still owned by the BBC) because he wouldn’t go along with Jazeera’s creativity with the reporting on Syria 18 months ago.
@Walid
And who is funding Ghassan Bin Jiddo and al-Mayadeen?
Bruce, private sources made up of small investors. Bin Jiddo turned down a $20 million investment from a wealthy Palestinian when he first announced his plan to start the network because he didn’t want a single substantial investor that would interfere with the stations editorial content. This delayed the opening of his station by a year. Bin Jiddo is an ardent Arab nationalist from Tunisia, a Suni with a Christian mother and now married to a Lebanese Shia. His only bias appears to be against Israel for its mistreatment of Palestinians.
If you’d like to discuss the sour grapes rumour that was spread about his financing having come from the Iranians or from Assad’s wealthy cousin, why not say so? Bin Jiddo has denied this allegation being made only on the pro-US/Israel media outlets to disparage him and al-Mayadeen. France 24 refers to the station as the “anti-Jazeera al-Mayadeen”, which is rather stupid. Some in the US are calling it the “pro-Iranian Mayadeen”.
Libyan oil is flowing.It is flowing to Italy,Spain,France while its people are killing each other. Syria has no oil but it can free up oil in Iran and Israel’s opportunities in enlarging its borders by ceasing to exist. What Saudi Arab and Qatar dont know that after Iran ( after Syria ) it will be them unless they prostrate 5 times to Likud and Shas everyday.While US will take the fight to China and Russia leaving Israel to manage the ME.
traitosiberia, Syria doe not have oil but it has something just as important and it’s its geography that’s needed for the pipelines to carry it. The CIA’s very first international hit-job was the overthrow of the Syrian regime in 1949 that was refusing to allow the Trans-Arabian Pipeline to pass through Syria to reach the Med. Now 63 years alater, the US is again back at it because of another pipeline:
link to atimes.com
traintosiberia says:
While US will take the fight to China and Russia leaving Israel to manage the ME.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s the arrangement Israel wants. Always wanted the US to set them up as Hegemon of the ME.
I can hear their presentations now….’We’re willing to manage the ME for you so you can concentrate on your other interest. Leave it to us and we’ll notify you if you need to do anything and against who”.
And then the US Israel firsters will say…”see what a huge asset Israel is for the US, why it’s managing a whole part of the world for us”!
It’s always a pleasure to see hypocrisy in one’s political opponents. Taxi and Danaa have always been outspoken in their hatred for the Zionist entity and I assumed that a love for justice was at the base of their opinions. Now I find out that their opinions are geopolitical and have very little to do with any justice. How much joy to read their protestations that Syria’s freedoms under Assad (or lack thereof) is comparable to the lack of freedom in the United States. And here I was worrying how Israel looks in the eyes of the United States and now I find out that if only American readers would have clarity they would see that American society is no better than Assad’s.
Their utter hypocrisy and lying through their teeth does not free me from worrying about the lack of justice and the long term future of Israel and the Palestinians. But allow me a moment of pleasure to listen to these paragons of virtue show themselves to be at least as full of it as me.
It is shocking. I agree. It is one thing to say it’s a mess and the US has no role, but to be an Assad apologist is revolting. And another point here. Why are these foreign Jihadists intervening in Syria? Because they view the was against Assad in the prisms of Assad murdering and butchering Muslims. Is their view to be completely ignored.
One can argue Assad always played a delicate dance. On the one hand, being the reformer with the glamorous chic wife who hinted at good relations with the West, while supposedly “resisting” Israel’s machinations in the region. Fine. But I would argue he never really “resisted” Israel that much, simply used the issue to divert his own corruption and killing of his own people.
What does he really think about Israel??? He’s removed most of his troops from the Golan back to Damascus and Allepo so they can be used in another form of resistance! that is against his own people. He’s more scared of his own people than Israel.
The West, Mossad, the gulf states can be accused rightly of hidden motives regarding Syria, but how about Russia or Iran? Might not they have their own agenda here. It certainly isn’t the Syrian people. It is also being used as a proxy to fight Israel(through Lebanon)and to foment trouble against the Gulf States.
Look, just because a person loves(or proclaims to love)the Palestinian people, doesn’t mean he’s a good guy or even that his love is true. Also, the cause of the Palestinian people can also be used by unsavory characters for their own agenda. Just as from my point of view, the cause of Israel and zionism can be used by anti-semites on the right to insulate them against charges of anti-semitism(Le Pen and others do this in Europe).
@ Yonah & Biorabbi
As if any of you two care. You’re supporting the same kind of Islamists that came into power in Egypt in terms of social and cultural values.
Yet in Egypt it’s an Islamist nightmare – why? Because Israel prefers Mubarak.
In Syra, you both pretend to be freedom lovers – why? Because in this case, Israel dislikes the dictator. Mubarak may have been a S.O.B, but at least he was Israel’s bitch.
So spare us the crocodile tears. Neither of you are liberals in one iota, you’re both thuggish ethno-nationalists. The only reason you prefer one over the over is because of what’s good for Israel.
We ask ourselves; what’s good for the Syrian people?
The only question both of you two start and end your day, however, is this: what’s good for the Jews? Ad infinitum.
Cry your crocodile tears all you want. Neither if you fool nobody. You don’t have any empathy with any of these people at all and you just don’t care. All you ever cared about was Israel and that’s the limit of your humanity.
@ Kilroy & Danaa
It’s well known that the rebels are orchestrated by the Bilderberg group and the neocons.
Read more here: link to guardian.co.uk
Does this mean that Assad is a good guy?
No, hardly, but what’s happening now in Syria is manufactured.
In other words, it isn’t a geunine revolution like Egypt. So what we will get is a secular dictator out in favour of a Neocon(and Israel-approved) opposition which will subjugate the population even more, splinter it, and oppress the minorities.
It’s a lose-lose.
In this situation, it’s better to be guided by principles rather than “I know this or that friend”, Ms. Kilroy. Is the uprising nurtured by the neocons/Bilderberg? Yes it is.
So what choice do you have? Support Assad?
That’s a false choice. Support the genuine liberals, not the Neocon-backed puppets.The liberals are in a minority, which is why it’s all the more important that they get our aid. But let’s support the independent ones, not the manufactured ones
Krauss, thanks for the Guardian link. Very enlightening material about the Syrian ‘exiles” and ‘activist spokesmen”.
Usually when confusion reigns about the interpretation of positions taken by this or that “exile” I take the view that it’s best to first find out who funds whom and which think tank underwrites their appearance. If I learnt anything, it’s that humans can be counted on to know which side of the bread their butter is on. Even otherwise very good people.
yonah fredman,
And who are you again? Ah right a cog in the ethnic-cleansing zionist wheel. Squeaking, I mean speaking to us about morality and oppression. Uhuh thank you for not discussing the facts.
Want some popcorn while you watch Syria burn?
This by Cyr in chinapost.com:
link to chinapost.com.tw
(…)
“During this period of viable options, Damascus received much good advice from Turkey, an old friend and neighbor that would be directly affected by an upheaval in Syria. Unfortunately, it was spurned and eventually Syria lost Turkey’s valuable support.
Turkey is mindful of the implications of Syria’s disintegration for the transnational Kurdish question. It also knows that neither the “Salafi” warriors who have flocked to Syria nor the Alawite militia, Shabiha, would undergo a Damascene conversion to a liberal, equitable and secular dispensation warranted by Syria’s confessional demography and history. More likely they will battle on. Turkey is, therefore, still carefully calibrating its “intervention.”
Syria will find it extremely difficult to reclaim lost time. What began as an internal quest for democratic reforms has by now become a full-scale civil war in which several Western and regional governments are deeply involved. (…)
Without any doubt, an outstanding feature of this phase is the greatly enhanced outside interference. Many Western analysts concede that outside military intervention has already begun and the only question now is about its future form and extent. Following the Russian-Chinese veto, Washington was reported to have decided to provide greater support to the armed rebels of Syria. Former British Special Air Service officers are reportedly training Arab fighters streaming into Jordan en route to Syria.
The Arab states are mainly focused on breaking up the so-called Iran-sponsored “Shia crescent” of which Damascus is the lynchpin. In doing so, they seem to have moved from financing and arming the Syrian opposition to an organized infiltration of “jihadists.” Western correspondents have confirmed the presence among them of “al-Qaida” sympathizers who have a strong sectarian motivation. Iran has reiterated its support for Bashar al-Assad’s regime; in Lebanon, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has reassured the Syrian army that Hezbollah would stand by it.
The Syrian movement for human rights, dignity and majoritarian democracy stands heavily militarized. And yet it is by no means certain that the rebels can defeat the Syrian army that has been given a much freer hand after the Damascus attack of July 18. Again, there is no guarantee anymore that Assad’s departure by itself would bring the kind of relative tranquility that was witnessed in Egypt once Hosni Mubarak was ousted.
Some Western think tanks now glibly talk of an all-out sectarian conflict in the entire Levant, the outcome of which is hard to predict. While Syria teeters on the verge of chaos, the entire region may suffer a body blow from which it may not recover for decades. Only those who have worked overtime to frame regional issues as a Saudi-Iran contest or a Shiite-Sunni conflict would celebrate.
“…Some Western think tanks now glibly talk of an all-out sectarian conflict in the entire Levant, the outcome of which is hard to predict. While Syria teeters on the verge of chaos, the entire region may suffer a body blow from which it may not recover for decades…”
But would this be good for the
JewsIsraelis?I think yes. Assuming there’s a real possibility of throwing the whole region or a good deal of it into prolonged conflict, we can pretty much figure on Israel giving a helpful shove. In fact, it’s possible she won’t back any particular faction but just focus on keeping anyone from coming out on top.
ColinWright, that seems to be the West’s game plan with the Gulf states going along for the ride to do a number on the Shia. The fracturing of the area was attempted in 2006 with the Israeli/US war on Lebanon’s Shia and Rice’s gleeful announcement that with the bombing, Lebanon was experiencing or witnessing “the birthpangs of a new Middle East”. That same attempt is now being tried but because Israel wasn’t up to the job the first time, this time it’s using the Islamist movements everywhere and calling it the “Arab Spring”. It should have been called the “Zionist Spring” as only Israel is benefitting by it.
MOST Syrians, regardless of whether they’re pro or anti Bashar, are more concerned with their country’s breakup into anarchy – as rightly Danaa and annie suggest. How do I know this for sure, standing, like everyone else, in the thick of the fog of war? Well a few days ago, I got into my friend’s car with her Syrian home-help and husband Syrian gardener, and we drove them from the south of Lebanon to the Bekaa valley and right up to the Lebanese-Syrian border, so they can catch a coach from there into Damascus, to visit their family and get a fresh employment stamp for their re-entry back into Lebanon.
So upon arriving to a ramshackle fuel and pit stop on the border, my friend and I decided to have coffee there and wait with her Syrian employees for their connecting bus. After coffee, we strolled around the small dusty compound with at least a coupla thousand worried Syrians trying to get back into Syria, and so, naturally, I started talking to strangers here and there. (No I did not do a senator David Storobin and don the army fatigues of a foreign country, carry war riffle and tread with bravado in a brown pair of size 11 loafers). It took no more than 15 minutes of talking to various Syrians to ascertain that what they were ALL most terrified of, terrorized by, was surviving the many robber vagabonds now violently ambushing the road to Damascus and beyond. And their second fear, my consensus gleaned, yes their second biggest fear, was being kidnapped by the so-called rebels.
Fear of the Syrian army was not on their radar. It was fear of anarchy itself AND fear of Salafist kidnappers.
So to Eleanor upthread: Your “MA in Near and Middle Eastern Studies” cannot possibly supply you with EVERYTHING you can know about the evolving situation on the ground – with all due respect. I bet your Syrian friends in London(?), if they had been on this road trip with me, would realize in a sec that the biggest danger to their country is currently the approaching anarchy, sponsored and fueled by foreign agents on Syrian ground. They would also, probably resentfully, have to acknowledge that at least Bashar is currently actually trying to STOP the country’s descent into anarchy, not encourage it. You’ll note here that where the Syrian army has control, there are NO KIDNAPPERS OR VAGABONDS. And in the few areas where the Syrian army is NOT in control, indeed vagabonds and kidnappers are aplenty and thriving.
And if people think that anarchy and an armed civil unrest in Syria will bring down the Bashar regime, they’d better think twice: the more anarchy in Syria, the longer Bashar stays: getting support and green-lighted with endless military supplies by the Ruskies, who have no intention of having America (and its warmongering mid east friends) control Syria: their “Gateway To Warmer Waters”.
If people out there are genuinely interested in helping Syria, they would need to understand why this is happening to Syria in the first place: the troubles in Syria are part and parcel of America/Saudi/israel’s war on Iran. It’s all about weakening Iran, Iran Iran Iran: the next upcoming mideast super power (iran would have both nukes and oil, while israel only has nukes and saudi has only oil). The bloodthirsty cabal has already tried this dastardly “Operation Volcano” on Lebanon and failed – and still they keep trying while now simultaneously trying it on Syria too, Iran’s other important friend in the region. All signs indicate they are failing, despite the relentless and vapid propaganda in western and oil media – and btw ordinary Syrians are the ones actually paying for this failure. And they are failing for the simple reason: the Syrian army is still baathist and intact: the handful of defectors are easily replaceable – and it would take THOUSANDS of army defectors to weaken the army to the degree where the salafists can take over.
The salafists and their foreign backers already know this, but they’re still gonna make it as bad and bloody as they possibly can – mostly for ordinary Syrians that is.
So if you are well-intended and want to help the Syrian people, you will first demand that ALL armed foreigners exit Syrian lands. Second, you will demand that the Syrian government do what is necessary to make streets and neighborhoods safe again. Thirdly, you will demand that Bashar, once peace and security is re-established in Syria, fulfill his promises from a few months ago to further democratize the country.
But first things first: get the freaking hired foreigners outta Syria!
Taxi, you and Danaa are 100% correct but it has to be tempered with some of what Annie is saying about both sides being guilty and how foollish it would be to take sides.
I still don’t believe the regime people could have committed the Houla massacre, but on the other hand, one can’t turn a blind eye to another massacre that happened 3 days ago in Azaaz, north of Aleppo and close to the Turkish border. A 3/4 sq km neighbourhood was pulverized by Mig 25s killing over 40 people and injuring over 200 hundred. The story was covered in detail by 2 Lebanese TV stations, one pro-Syrian and the other pro-US, as their TV crews were still in the area interviewing the 11 Lebanese Shia pilgrims held captive by the rebel army. Since the bombing of Azaaz, the Lebanese captives are reported missing or under the rubble of the destroyed homes.
Aside from the wrong the West is trying to do to Syria with help from the Gulf Arabs, it’s also wrong to discount the Brothers’ beef against the Baathist regime that goes all the way back to what the regime had done to them at Hama in 1982 with its “scorched earth” policy. Instead of seeing one giant Hama today, we are seeing a series of smaller ones happening all over Syria. The rebels not acting much better, this week were filmed throwing regime supporters from the roof of a building.
Apart from other Salafists elsewhere and Americans, no one is rooting for the Salafists to win against Assad because they know that they would get another Iraq or Libya in return. On the other hand, it has to be admitted that the supposed reforms that were supposed to have happened with Syria’s new constitution were bogus. Nothing really changed as the regime still thinks it can get away with not really changing anything in the current power structure.
How could they have activated the ‘new’ policies when soon as Bashar announced them, the so-called peaceful protestors immediately turned into armed ‘rebels’ in city squares?
Let’s get real here: whatever we may think of Bashar (hint: not cool), it’s his army’s duty to maintain peace on Syrian land and confronted with foreign mercenaries and Syrian salafists, his army is left with no option but to flush out the foreign-armed killers.
To expect Bashar not to have this feat as his first priority is naive.
Taxi, I don’t have any problems with what you said about the way the armed rebels responded to the new constitution; with Hillary coaching them every step of the way to turn away from any of Assad’s peace overtures, it’s to be expected. I’m saying the regime, that Assad doesn’t really totally control, played into the Americans’ hands by making token changes to the constititution. The Brotherhood and other opposition parties were allowed to field political parties, which is meaningless since the Baathists are still the ones with the absolute power and are still responsible for naming party faithfuls to government posts. The new constitution didn’t change anything in this regard. Giving the President 2 consecutive 7-year terms effective 2 years from now, effectively affords Assad the chance to rule another 16 years. Added to the 12 years he has been ruling, it gives him a total of 28 years. He could have offered to walk away at the end of the coming 2 years to let someone else have a chance to rule the country. In the end, the new constitution makes it possible for the Assad father and son team to have ruled for over 60 years. This is more about dynastic than about democratic. I don’t hold any grudges against Assad, which I think is a nice guy, but I have reservations about his regime.
Hi Walid,
Regarding the new suggested changes to the Syrian constitution, my information and understanding is that last Bashar agreed to, having just won an election, was that he would announce a new election to take place no more than two years down the line of time: soon as the so-called rebels would agree to halt their weaponized street protests and the streets were made safe again, and the wheels of a new election were spun in full motion. The ‘rebels’ of course refused this reasonable compromise. I think Bashar is a new-generation of Arab leaders who inherited their power, but, unlike the Tikritis and Mubaraks, he ultimately prefers a democracy to a dictatorship. And he ain’t a playboy hi-spender birthday boy like that Qaddafi son either, nor is he a power-hungry sadist. Yes he didn’t go the whole hog and immediately resign, but he most certainly showed flexibility and was willing to negotiate. He was willing to step aside, under the right conditions, and leave the Baathists to figure out how to win a transparent and democratic election.
Honestly, I haven’t seen signs that Bashar is committed to a dynastic life-long project. And the above is not in praise of him (I have an aversion to all politicians), but statements of facts and behaviorism analysis.
Taxi says: “Hi Walid,
Regarding the new suggested changes to the Syrian constitution, my information and understanding is that last Bashar agreed to, having just won an election, was that he would announce a new election to take place no more than two years down the line of time: soon as the so-called rebels would agree to halt their weaponized street protests and the streets were made safe again, and the wheels of a new election were spun in full motion. The ‘rebels’ of course refused this reasonable compromise…”
Maybe the rebels aren’t quite as convinced of Bashar’s good faith as you seem to be.
For sure Colin, you hate Syrian people. Why else would you want Syria to fall into anarchy and be divided by Syria’s enemies? And who the eff are you to say above that Bashar is finished? What are you basing this on? Your declarations are worse than Hilary’s and Haaretz headlines. Whether you and I like it or not, Bashar is there to stay till the Syrian army retakes control of the HANDFUL of flashpoint areas and flushes out the foreign insurgency. For your own info, most Syrian sunnis ARE NOT SALAFIST AND THEY ARE NOT FIGHTING BASHAR.
What the Syrian people want first and foremost and IMMEDIATELY, is peace and safety in their neighborhoods and they know that getting rid of Bashar will not bring this to them but will widen the conflict nationally then regionally.
Have you even ever been to the mideast? Ever spoken with a variety of Syrians? I think not. You say stuff just to be contrary cuz you’re lonely and bored and need someone to engage with, right?
Taxi, I’m against the overthrow of the Syrian regime because like most Syrians, I have a good idea what would replace it. Burhan Ghalioun’s rebels have already announced that once they overthrow the regime, they would sign an unconditional peace with Israel without any mention of the Golan or the Palestinians’ right of return. That gives you an idea what’s in store for Syria if Assad leaves. It also gives you an idea of what’s in store for the Christians, the Alawites and other minorities. The rebels’ battle cry now is “the Christians to Beirut and the Alawites to the grave”.
That doesn’t mean that everything the regime has been doing is sugar and spice. It has done some ugly stuff itself that’s going to be very hard for the Syrians to forget and forgive. Memories of Hama ’82 are being replayed every day on a smaller scale in many parts of the country with the latest one in Azaz on the Turkish border. Not very nice what was done to the civilian population there, not by the rebels that first hid among the civilians and not by the regime after the rebels left.
Firsthand from a nun in Syria:
“Free” “Syrian” “Army” Terrorists are killing Christians, burning and destroying Christian Churches
link to youtube.com
The escalating militarization of the Syrian conflict only favors foreign players’ interests, claims Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute of Policy Studies, and an activist on the Middle East. “Almost none of the players are taking into account the interests of the people of Syria.”
Blake, the nun is Mother Agnès Mariam de la Croix, a Palestinian-Lebanese that has been campaigning against the rebels from the start and at times sounds like an official spokesperson for the regime although she does call it “totalitarian” in your video.. Some of her fears about the Salafists wanting to empty Syria of its Christians, Alawites and other Shia are founded, but she has been known to over-dramatize certain events concerning the plight of the Christians to bring attention to them, as she appears to be doing by reading from a script in the video. She cried wolf a few times. But some of what she said is true. She is asking for non-violence between the opposing sides while at the same time saying she wishes they’d take their battles to the desert.
It’s hard for some anti-imperialists to believe that there are Syrians that actually want to have a regime change in Syria and that aren’t necessarily collecting monthly paycheques from Qatar and Saudia. Of course, many Syrians are getting paid to fight the regime as the fighters are not only Libyan, Iraqi, Saudi and so on. The majority of rebel fighters are Syrian.
A British reporter reported in the Sunday Times 2 weeks back that he was threatened and held captive by fighters with British accents who could not speak any Arabic.
‘Londoner against Londoner’: UK fighters held journalist captive in Syria
By Daniel Strieff, NBC News
LONDON — A British photojournalist has described the terrifying week he was held captive by radical Islamist militants in Syria, where he and another photographer constantly feared for their lives at the hands of “disenchanted” young Britons.
Writing in The Sunday Times newspaper (site operates behind a pay wall), seasoned conflict photographer John Cantlie said he and Dutch photographer Jeroen Oerlemans were repeatedly told to prepare to die and at one point “we heard the worst noise we will hear in our lives: the sharpening of knives for a beheading.”
It was not supposed to be that way.
The two men, along with their Syrian guide named in the article only as Mohamed, had entered the country on July 19 to cover the 17-month-old uprising in Syria, where fighters with the opposition Free Syrian Army have been battling to oust President Bashar Assad’s regime and end his family’s four-decade grip on power.
link to worldnews.nbcnews.com
About that nun:
Nun on Irish visit accused of peddling ‘regime lies’ about crisis in Syria
Like many foreign students and visitors I met Father Paolo at Deir Mar Musa. He is a man of integrity, unlike this nun, who is going around saying the Houla massacre was not government perpetrated – the same lies spread by media sources, which commenters here are sadly fond of linking to and quoting from liberally in order to insinuate the same thing.
All she wanted was an end to the sectarian violence and the targeting of civilians. Why would she lie about wanting non violence? She said totalitarianism under Assad was not right but to replace it with one that was worse – ie no security, no food, etc – cannot be a good thing. That sounds sane and rational to me.
Eleanor,
Without an INDEPENDENT investigation into the Houla massacre, YOU cannot claim/declare/insist that you know the truth, sitting there in the comfort of your London home.
The nun has as much right to her assumptions as you do. And actually she has legitimate fears of the salafists who are threatening her very existance, whereas your fears, it seems, are all about getting verbally fired at by a blogger or two.
You tell us that Syrians really want Bashar out then when somebody Syrian presents you with a contrary message, you diss them. WTF Eleanor?!
Thank you Taxi and with firsthand experience too. She only wants an end to the violence. Nothing wrong with that surely. You would think she was the reason for the violence/massacre(s) the way she has been character assassinated on here.
Taxi, you’re right that nobody really knows who did the Houla massacres; all the signs lead to fanatical religious people that shave their heads and mustaches and have scraggly unkept beards. This from surviving witnesses.
My mistake for confusing nuns! I am ‘dissing’ the nun on the Irish tour.
I have made my point clearly enough on this thread: the sources that were linked to and quoted post-Houla massacre, on this site, such as FAIR as somehow evidence that it was perpetrated by the rebels are not credible on Syria and never where, as per Phil’s and Pulse’s post. Why then were they relied on so heavily, and barely challenged here? I think now I have said enough.
Btw, Taxi when I write on Palestine it is usually also ‘from the comfort of my London home’, in common with many other writers on the issue around the world.
Al Jazeera had a string of resignations re the bias against the Syrian regime.
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
“Btw, Taxi when I write on Palestine it is usually also ‘from the comfort of my London home’, in common with many other writers on the issue around the world.”
Difference though Ms Eleanor, is that with regards to Palestinians, there is plenty of actual evidence for you to present on their behalf, but regarding Houla, you ain’t got nothing to present but judgement based on resentment.
Eleanor, Father Paolo was expelled from Syria after 30 years because he became a spokeperson for the rebels. Like Mother Mariam of the Cross, he should have stayed out of politics and stuck to religion. Now he is on speaking tour in the US and has become a sort of religious Wafa Sultan in badmouthing the Syrian regime. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s not already on the Bnai Brith lectures circuit along with Sultan, Gabriel and Shoebat.
Walid, one can argue that had there been no violence in Syria the nun would not have become involved in politics at all. All she is calling for is peace. Not to be the next president of Syria.
Having said that you do know your stuff.
So Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, reports that the ‘rebels’ are being financed and armed by Qatar and the Saudis? I must have missed that repoirt.
manfromatlan:
From Jazeera:
$300m had already been spent, some of which were contributions to the rebel FSA [AFP]
Syrian businessmen living abroad have created a $300m fund to support rebels fighting forces of President Bashar al-Assad, opposition activists announced.
“This fund has been established to support all components of the revolution in Syria, and to establish a strong relationship with businessmen inside and outside Syria and to protect civilians,” Wael Merza, secretary-general of the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC), said on Wednesday in the Qatari capital, Doha.
Merza said that about $150m had already been spent, some of which were contributions to the rebel Free Syrian
Army (FSA).
“The majority of support given [to the rebels] will be on the technical side,” Merza said. “It’s also logistical support
to our people on the ground.”
“Yes, we supported the Free [Syrian] Army to protect civilians,” Mustafa Sabbagh, president newly formed Syrian
Business Forum of businessmen in exile, said.
The fund will be based in Doha, Merza said. He also hinted at strong financial support from Gulf Arab states for the new fund.
“We are going to see distinct support of this fund from neighbours in a very clear manner, in a matter of weeks. We
expect Qatar to play a major role,” he said.
link to aljazeera.com
and from Reuters:
“Qatar PM calls for arming Syrian rebels
(Reuters) – The international community should provide arms to Syria’s opposition and Arab countries should take the lead in providing a safe haven for rebels inside Syria, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani said on Monday.
“I think we should do whatever is necessary to help them, including giving them weapons to defend themselves,” the prime minister said during a visit to Norway.
While the West has dismissed talk of a Libya-style NATO role to support the opponents of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Gulf Arab states have pushed for a more forceful stance. Saudi Arabia said on Friday it would back the idea of arming rebels.
The Qatari prime minister said that Arab countries should take part in an international military effort to stop the bloodshed in Syria after 11 months of insurrection against Assad in which thousands have been killed.
“Since we failed in the Security Council to do something, I think we have to try to do something to send enough military help to stop the killing,” he said
link to reuters.com
Walid says: “The Qatari prime minister said that Arab countries should take part in an international military effort to stop the bloodshed in Syria after 11 months of insurrection against Assad in which thousands have been killed.
“Since we failed in the Security Council to do something, I think we have to try to do something to send enough military help to stop the killing,” he said…”
In principle, that may be the best solution. If a force powerful enough and unified enough can be assembled to overawe all opposition, that could be the most humanitarian solution. It’s secondary which particular sectarian interests are served.
Conrad once observed that ‘it is in this connection that might so often is right’ — that it can indeed bring the killing to a halt.
Assuming it could — and assuming that such a force could be assembled — then that might well turn out to be best. Slaughtered victims are essentially neutral about who exactly killed them and why. They’d just rather not be dead.
COLIN WRIGHT- “If a force powerful enough and unified enough can be assembled to overawe all opposition, that could be the most humanitarian solution.”
Sounds to me that you never met a ‘humanitarian intervention’ that you didn’t like. The current massive killing is a direct consequence of the current US/NATO/Saudi/Qatari intervention aimed at regime change. Your solution? Increase the violence with a more powerful force. What do you have in mind, NATO bombs? How fortunate you are not to have to suffer the direct consequences of your noble humanitarianism!
“Sounds to me that you never met a ‘humanitarian intervention’ that you didn’t like. The current massive killing is a direct consequence of the current US/NATO/Saudi/Qatari intervention aimed at regime change. Your solution? Increase the violence with a more powerful force. What do you have in mind, NATO bombs? How fortunate you are not to have to suffer the direct consequences of your noble humanitarianism!”
First off, I’m positing a force that could actually succeed. That it is the given. Whether it can or cannot be given would be a separate argument.
Secondly, as I tried to point out elsewhere, you have to say what you would do instead. Just standing with arms folded and seeing how long the inhabitants of Syria go at it is a choice as well. You advocate doing nothing, that’s the option you picked.
It is not sufficient to merely condemn every proposed solution in turn. You have to specify what you would advocate instead. As I just pointed out, even advocating nothing is effectively making a choice.
Assuming that you’re right — that all and sundry are already sticking their oar in — well, that just takes us back to the initial question. What would you advocate instead, and how do you see that ending the carnage?
Taking the above comments as a a whole, without commenting on any one individual’s offerings, I don’t think I’ve ever read so many strained or improbable interpretations of anything from so many different directions in my life.
I think too many people are trying to ram what is going on in Syria into their own particular political paradigm (including possibly myself). I think the actual attempt to work out what is going on in Syria and what would be the best thing to do about it in purely humanitarian terms is taking a distinct back seat.
I am convinced that discussing the pros and cons of Assad’s regime is a moot point. We might as well discuss the merits of putting the Bourbons back on the throne of France. Assad’s day is done, and the sooner he is gone, the fewer people will die in this stage of the process, and the sooner we can move onto the next stage — whatever that’s going to be. All letting him linger is going to accomplish is to drive up the final butcher’s bill.
ColinWright, “humanitarian” as we once understood it to mean would have been the right thing, but what the US and friends did in its name in Libya and are now proposing to do in Syria have turned it into a dirty word. Enough people have died in Syria without the further need of humanitarian help.
Walid says: “Enough people have died in Syria without the further need of humanitarian help.”
But this — as I have tried to point out — is a cop-out itself. The carnage is already happening. You can’t just say ‘do nothing.’ That merely means ‘let it continue.’ You have to specify what you would advocate — and show that it is at one and the same time both realistic and likely to prove effective.
ColinWright, you’re adding that I implied to let the carnage continue, which of course is not the case. The carnage in good part is being fueled by the West and its Arab partners eventhough the insurgents and the rest of the population have enough reasons to be displeased with their regime. I already said that the constitutional changes were not enough and that foreigners should get out of Syria and that Assad should retire in a couple of years when his term ends. Your way is the Libya way that cost 100,000 civilian lives. I don’t wish it on Syria but I also don’t wish for them that the Assads stay in power forever. But if that’s what the Syrians want, it’s nobody else’s business how long Assad stays.
COLIN WRIGHT- “I think the actual attempt to work out what is going on in Syria and what would be the best thing to do about it in purely humanitarian terms is taking a distinct back seat.”
The foreign intervention currently underway in Syria has nothing to do with humanitarianism, it is all about regime change. If the US was even remotely concerned with humanitarianism, it would stop supporting the violence and try to negotiate a settlement. Unfortunately, that is unlikely.
“Assad’s day is done, and the sooner he is gone, the fewer people will die in this stage of the process, and the sooner we can move onto the next stage — whatever that’s going to be.”
Obviously, you support regime change, rather flippantly, I might add. Your conclusion that fewer people will die as a consequence is pure hubris. Military intervention doesn’t save lives, it causes increased death and destruction. As Inanna says above, “May Allah save us from western liberals trying to protect us.” As for the consequences of regime change, I provide a differing opinion from yours below:
“The Syrians have long been suspicious of the West and its Arab allies while the West has consistently failed to read the country. These failures have been to the detriment of peace in the Middle East. For Syria is essential for peace and stability in the region–something that will not be achieved by a Western-inspired overthrow of the present government in Damascus. If Bashar al-Assad’s government and Syria’s armed forces disintegrate, the consequences for the Middle East will be disastrous. With disparate groups in the population, and weapons aplenty in a volatile region, an Afghan-type scenario is very likely. And the consequences will be worse than those of recent wars.” (Deepak Tripathi)
link to counterpunch.org
Keith: “…Obviously, you support regime change, rather flippantly, I might add. ..”
This is really lame. Assad has lost all legitimacy.
Governments have legitimacy. That’s what distinguishes them from the biker gang on the next block. The government says ‘give me $100,’ you give them the $100. The guy from the biker gang does it, you think about whether you can get away with telling him to ____ off.
Legitimacy/No legitimacy. Assad is no longer the ruler of Syria. He’s merely the head of a powerful armed group. Big difference.
For all intents and purposes, the regime change has already occurred. The question now is how to bring the killing to a stop, and what — if any — measures should be taken to erect a new government.
I never took a position on what to do as long as it was a matter of Assad’s authority being challenged. I wasn’t sure.
But it’s gone past that now. It’s not a question of advocating change versus advocating the status quo. The status quo is slaughter.
It’s not enough merely to oppose what is happening. You have to specify what you would want instead. You want to restore Assad? Say so. I imagine a reign of terror with a hundred thousand or so dead might do it. He’ll need some help, though. Are you willing to provide it? You don’t want to restore Assad? Okay — what instead? You don’t want to pick anything — okay, you’re for continuing slaughter.
“Assad has lost all legitimacy.”
ColinWright, this is American jargon aimed at idiots. Assad would lose his legitimacy when the Syrian people vote him out of office, not when Hillary Clinton decides he has. If you think the regime has fallen, why is it that the 400,000-man Syrian army is still standing behind it? You guys absurdly talk about other countries or leaders losing their legitimacy as if they have been deflowered.
/ Assad would lose his legitimacy when the Syrian people vote him out of office,/
You mean in the same way they voted him in to office ?
You joking Walid.
Elections only have meaning in democratic society , Assads “legitimacy”
was never based on democratic values in the first place therefore you can’t now apply them when Assad’s “legitimacy” is in question.
OlegR, who are you to speak on behalf of the Syrian people and say what is legitimate or not for them? Attend to what the Zionists in the apartheid state are doing to the Palestinians in their own lands before talking about Assad.
Zionists just can’t help their greed and envy: they attempt to de-legitimize EVERY election any of their neighbors have.
Bashar won by 52% – so it’s highly unlikely that it was a fixed election, otherwise the numbers wouldabeen much higher in his favor.
And at least it’s Syria’s ruling party’s legitimacy that is being put in the dock, and not the country itself. Whereas Apartheid israel’s very being is questionable and deemed illegitimate by several billion people around the world, regardless of the name of the supremist criminal that wins their ziomocracy and rules over the stolen land.
Translating Walid.
Mind your own business Zionist the Syrians will decide which dictator
is legitimate and which isn’t.
/Bashar won by 52% – so it’s highly unlikely that it was a fixed election, otherwise the numbers wouldabeen much higher in his favor./
You mean in that staged referendum while his tanks were blasting Hama .
Terrible and to think that just in 2007 the Syrian loved him so much that he won
“Syrian President Bashar Assad won 97.62 percent of the vote in a referendum that confirmed him for a second 7-year term, Interior Minister Bassam Abdel Majeed said on Tuesday.
“This great consensus shows the political maturity of Syria and the brilliance of our democracy and multi-party system,” Majeed told reporters.”
link to haaretz.com
What a downfall for him.
/And at least it’s Syria’s ruling party’s legitimacy that is being put in the dock, and not the country itself./
Give it time Taxi i don’t think the French /British creations built on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire have better prospects then my country
and they won’t need any external pressure…
OlegR, there was nothing wrong in you discussing it; what was offensive was an Israeli talking about what is legitimate for another country.
Is there some codex or rule book about which topics is ok for an Israeli to discuss and which isn’t.
Commenters on this site discuss regularly what’s legitimate or illegitimate
for Israel you don’t seem to have a problem with that.
And btw Syria for me is not some country across the Atlantic far far away as it is for most people here, what happens there has direct impact on Israel as well.
But that in any case has no relation to my original comment.
I was calling Taxis BS when he started talking about Assads legitimacy.(Was it ok for him to do it, he is not Syrian afaik)
From a democratic point of view a dictator is illegitimate no matter what country he rules.
“From a democratic point of view a dictator is illegitimate no matter what country he rules.”
What do you suppose you know about democracy, Russian? Half of the people your goddamned government controls don’t get a vote. When everyone does, then you get to complain about Syria.
So you calling an election a “referendum”? Besides your confusion over the meaning of the words, you’re really mixed up my dear: you’re describing exactly how zionists run their ziomocracy: a referendum on which israeli criminal candidate can ethnically cleanse faster.
And when you can provide links to your silly analysis, you know: NON ZIONIST LINKS, then I can take you seriously. Till then you remain a brainwashed cog.
You could live in the middle east for a hundred years and you would STILL know nothing of the natives – and how could you: living as an isolationist colonialist Russian in the mideast?
The only “illegitimate” presence in the mideast is Apartheid israel – the ultimate racist dictator state in the middle east – just slightly ahead of Saudi Arabia.
A local dictator (a native) is by far better than a foreign dictator (an occupier).
You’ll note here that I just called the regime’s head a dictator and you will put a sock in it when you talk about what I think of Bashar – it ain’t “hypocrisy” to note facts and the facts are that more Syrians want Bashar to stay than not despite his dictatorship, and MOST of the Syrians who want him to stay, want him to stay for the time being, especially now in these troubled times, and not stay forever – and he is staying not because I say so but because he’s still got a good hold on his country regardless of what haaretz and shamaaretz say, and that ain’t changing anytime soon. And if it did, you isrelis will be the first to suffer the consequences cuz there sure as hell will be a regional war if Bashar falls the way you fantasists of blood and gore envision it.
OlegR, it’s not about rules but a matter of knowing when it’s in bad taste to discuss something.
Have i said anything derogatory or abusive about the Syrians , no i have not.
Stating that Assad is a dictator who draws his legitimacy from the bayonets
of his troop is a fact even when a Ziosupremacist (or whatever name the likes of Taxi want to pin on me) such as myself mentions it.
Besides what right any non Syrian on this site has to discuss anything regarding Syria it’s not like their countries haven’t spilled tons of ME blood
in the last decade.
This logic is faulty imho Walid.
Anyway i said what i had to say on this matter unless you want to continue
discussing Syria and not who gets to say what.
/A local dictator (a native) is by far better than a foreign dictator (an occupier)./
(Mooser hat on )
Bravo Taxi you moral beacon you…
(Mooser hat off)
“Elections only have meaning in democratic society , Assads “legitimacy”
was never based on democratic values in the first place therefore you can’t now apply them when Assad’s “legitimacy” is in question.”…Oleg
Israel isn’t and wasn’t ever based on democracy either, takes more than elections to make a democracy.
You have right to talk about Syria like we have a right to talk about Israel, but being a zionist Israeli you can’t expect anyone to give your judgements on what is legitimate and what isn’t much respect.
I can admit the truth about my country—that US democracy is now almost a total sham and say Israel never was a democracy –at the same time…LOL
Why can’t you admit the truth about Israel? Because ‘pretending’ is all you’ve got for democracy in Israel.
But we aren’t talking about Israel on this thread American , do try to keep up.
/You have right to talk about Syria like we have a right to talk about Israel, but being a zionist Israeli you can’t expect anyone to give your judgements on what is legitimate and what isn’t much respect./
As long as my judgments correspond with facts it shouldn’t matter much whether i am a Zionist or a Russian or Jehovas witness.
Unless you want to dispute that Assad is a dictator and as such cannot be considered “legitimate” from a democratic point of view ,
you can also argue the earth is flat while you are at it.
Mind that i haven’t actually anywhere on this thread suggested a solution or god forbid picked a side.
It’s entirely possible that what comes after Assad will be much much worth
for Syrians.It’s possible that it won’t , i don’t know.
This is a classic case of ” a plague on both your houses ”
earlier on this thread Annie thought that i chastised her for not picking a side, actually i was commending her.
COLLIN WRIGHT- “This is really lame. Assad has lost all legitimacy.”
No, what is lame is your ongoing hubris that you are in a position to determine Assad’s legitimacy. Apparently you feel that an armed intervention by outside powers including elements of al Qaeda is a de facto indication of ‘lack of legitimacy?’
“For all intents and purposes, the regime change has already occurred. The question now is how to bring the killing to a stop….”
Double hubris! You now feel that you are in a position to confirm regime change? Further, that your plan to send in massive force (who? Russia? US/Saudi Arabia/Qatar/ Turkey/al Qaeda?) will save lives? Military intervention saves lives? Where? When? Military intervention motivated by altruism? Where? When? You are a strategic analyst highly familiar with the area/people/sectarian conflicts/etc, sufficiently so that you can with confidence recommend additional massive use of force to ‘make the peace?’ Historian, researcher, writer and BBC journalist Deepak Tripathi’s view that “If Bashar al-Assad’s government and Syria’s armed forces disintegrate, the consequences for the Middle East will be disastrous.” of no consequence, not even worth considering in your expert opinion? When you say massive military intervention, realistically you have called for a NATO bombing to ‘save lives.’ Your desire to help these people by ratcheting up the violence truly inspiring.
“It’s not enough merely to oppose what is happening. You have to specify what you would want instead.”
I thought that I had made it clear that what I wanted was no outside interference, no intervention. Unfortunately, I am in no position to undo this intervention. Unlike you, I don’t support this war by proxy to ‘save lives,’ nor call for increased violence. But, as a liberal interventionist, you can’t conceive of not intervening somehow, the white man’s burden and all.
“okay, you’re for continuing slaughter.”
No, you are, but you want to increase the force and violence in hopes of a speedy conclusion.
But we aren’t talking about Israel on this thread American , do try to keep up.
LOL! How would you know? Israel is fairly notorious for the use of Mista’arvim units. They were used in the Bekaa valley in the 2006 Lebanon war and in Gaza in 2008/9.
Daniel Byman, of Georgetown and the Saban Center for Middle East Policy writes
link to bc.sas.upenn.edu
These Jewish undercover units, called “The Arabists of the Palmach” or Mista’arvim [literally, "Arab-pretenders"], are known to have been in operation in Palestine and neighboring Arab countries since 1942. The purpose of the units, which were part of the Palmach, was to gather intelligence information and carry out assassinations of Arabs, by infiltrating Arab towns and villages disguised as local Arabs. Primarily Jews who originated from Arab countries were recruited to the Mista ‘rivim. — See Targeting To Kill: Israel’s Undercover Units, Elia Zureik and Anita Vitullo, The Palestine Human Rights Information Center (PHRIC)
*link to thejerusalemfund.org
*link to palmach.org.il
and Zvika Dror, The ’Arabists’ of the Palmach (Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House, 1986)
Nothing would stop defectors from the regular Syrian army now serving in the rebel Free Syrian Army units from using their experience to pose as Assad’s forces too.
Seriously, judging from the information and guess work available in the public domain, the consensus of opinion now backs the thesis that Assad’s forces are the prime suspects, but that the rebels should be investigated too.
@ Oleg
You keep up…..I was commenting only and specifically on your complaint that you had a right to talk about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Assad in Syria since we here talk the same about Israel.
I agreed that you did.
It had nothing to do with your other comments or position on Assad.
I simply noted that the reason your particular judgements on other countries are often discounted is because your zionist stance won’t admit to any illegitimate areas in Israel like those you criticize in other ME countries.
/ your zionist stance won’t admit to any illegitimate areas in Israel/
That is not true i never argued that Israel is above reproach ,
we have enough faults undoubtedly.That obviously does not mean that i agree with every criticism of Israel presented in MW.
Anyway this discussion about my persona is irrelevant to this article
about Syria , it was initially raised by Taxi and Walid probably because they
couldn’t deal with the argument.
Oleg,
Reduced to stealing (Mooser’s) hat, are we now?
Why am I not surprised.
Wondering now whose underpants you’re wearing?
“Mind that i haven’t actually anywhere on this thread suggested a solution or god forbid picked a side.”
Oleg just listen to you swindling yourself.
You’re selling the removal of Bashar the “dictator” in every other posting. WTF do you call that?
Pretending to be Snow White while wearing the idf jackboot and Mooser’s hat – yeah right!
I didn’t read all the above bloviation, so, in case no one has pointed it out: Why on earth would Assad, who’s backed into a corner, with images of Ghaddafi’s end going through his mind, a hairsbreadth away from being assassinated, the imminent destruction of all he is and owns, why would he consent to a massacre he couldn’t possibly coverup, given the plethora of satellites, drones, cell phones, text messages, spies, journalists etc. Forget all you may have read or heard or guessed at, and think on this one truth: the pigeon does not thrash the hawk. It just doesn’t happen.
Good point kapok. I was looking askance myself at that statement from Al-Jazeerah about the purpose of the massacre – ostensibly by government-allied militia – being to “ignite sectarian violence”. This must be classic case of motive projection – in what universe would that help Assad’s forces to keep control of Syria? if anything, we know that fanning civil war in Syria is the true purpose of the foreign axis of evil – the US doing Israel’s bidding with full-throated support by the islamist gulf states, and a more confused, somewhat ambivalent support by Turkey. The idea being that this would weaken Shi’a power ultimately across the entire ME, pave a way to Iran, deprive Russia of a port and bring Sunni Islamists to power. never mind that the MB and Salafis will have to duke it out among themselves – SA is convinced it can handle the repercussions. Everyone gets something this way, the only loser being the Syrian people – and no doubt – the Iranian people.
Oh yes, there is Turkey also. It must have begun to figure out that it stands to be among the losers, ultimately, what with the kurds going their own way, etc. But then weakening Turkey is part of the overall plan too. For Israel-run-US it’s what we call ‘a bonus’.
…also, why haven’t these stalwarts taken on the Saudis, who make the Baathists look like altar boys. Or hell, “The Jews(tm)” for that matter; don’t the “rebels” claim to be anti-Israel?
kapok, no, they are not anti-Israel fbut only for the needs of the insurgency. While the Brothers actually hate Israel with the same passion they hate everyone else that’s not of them, they have to play nice with the Americans because they need them and this means having to pretend they don’t hate Israel. The central council fighting the regime has even stated that once in power, Syria would sign an unconditional peace with Israel. But the Brothers in Egypt also promised the Americans to play nice with Israel and now they are slowly drifting away from that promise.
A commenter on MoA (forgot who it was or in what context) provided an interesting statement:
Without commitment, all is lost; the Left is incapable of commitment; therefore, the Left is lost.
I think this is applicable to much of what we are seeing with regard to the split reaction on the left to the events in Syria. The establishment and the PTBs could not have said or done it any better. It applies to Syria just as it applied to Libya and Iraq. It is especially applicable to movements like OWS and the splitting of the ranks when the issue of supporting Palestinian rights came up. It is especially apropo in relation to social justice movements like Israel’s J14 and the wedge driven straight into the heart of the very word “justice” as soon as the occupation came up or the Israeli palestinians’ rights.
In connection with this thread, we see – just for an illustration – on one side someone like Eleanor Kilroy whose heart is with a mythical pro-democracy ‘insurgency” that, all evidence aside, would hopefully usher in the great era of democracy into Syria (OK, I know I am misrepresenting the full texture of EK’s positions – no one can be that naive – but people on her side – among the Syrian “exile activists” she sides with do indeed lean this way). On the other side, there’s someone such as myself (by no means professing to lead or represent any one movement – just a representative lone voice among many) whose position is that endless blood-shed is so fundamentally detrimental to the people whose blood is shed and to all those around them, that the very process of militarizing a conflict into brutal series of events is bound to produce the very opposite of the hoped for utopia on one side, or the longed for security on the other. As two representative voices, both Eleanor and I are on the left and will no doubt be found on the same side when it comes to the Palestinians and/or OWS. But on a host of other conflicts we will likely fall into the endless ‘do means justify the end’ debates (again with due apologies to Eleanor, whose name I have no doubt misused in personalizing my little argument).
Syria notwithstanding, this kind of polarization is endemic to the left – it is indeed a deep fault-line running through the heart and soul of what many of us might consider “left”. But that’s exactly what caught my attention as embodied in the word “commitment’ per the statement above. If either of us – on either side – had true commitment we wouldn’t be having this argument – because we would be able to put aside our romantic yearnings for a perfect world, accept human history of revenge/counter-revenge as our guide and lend whole-hearted support to “human rights” which must include the right to life itself. By this token, someone like Eleanor, as much as she leans towards justice-on-earth – in the interest of all-out commitment – would come to see that shedding too much blood on the way to justice is bound to boomerang, setting the quest for justice further back than it ever was. And someone like me, whose blood boils too easily at the sight and sounds of great wrongs would put aside thoughts of vengeance and historical retributions. Again, in the interest of true commitment to the greater and deeper meaning of “rights”.
The best example I have of how the left loses is Iraq. So many anti-war marches and demonstrations. A million people in the UK. As many and more in the US. half a Million in Australia. Even 500 people in Israel. And all for naught. Iraq happened and it was horrible and nothing good came out of it for the Iraqi people who suffer terribly to this day and whose country is still broken. So why did we all lose? is it just that TPB were too strong and well funded? or did the internal arguments about whether Sadaam was a very bad guy that had to be “taken out” doom the core of the movement, so that it’s power was sapped by a thousand cuts?
I don’t have this figured out yet. But something is certainly eating at those of us who are – or should be otherwise on the same side.
Danaa says “And all for naught. Iraq happened and it was horrible and nothing good came out of it for the Iraqi people who suffer terribly to this day and whose country is still broken. “
One would almost think from reading this that Saddam Hussein was some sort of Middle Eastern Good King Wenceslas, beloved by his people(s) and bringing them all sorts of delights.
…of course said sugar plums ranged from poison gassings in the north to torture cells in the capitol to deliberate desertification in the South — but hey. We was ‘appy.
Right.
ColinWright, the West and the Gulf Arabs thought of him as Wenceslas when he was doing their dirty work in Iran for 8 years and the gas he used on the Kurds in the north was supplied to him by the West and while he did the number on the Shia in the south, the West simply watched.
Almost? That thought would never have occurred to me after reading this. Just the opposite.
“A commenter on MoA (forgot who it was or in what context) provided an interesting statement: “Without commitment, all is lost; the Left is incapable of commitment; therefore, the Left is lost.”
Danaa, that was 3 days ago by the Iranian “unknown unknowns” doing the syllogistic thing on the Silverstein thread. UU was saying that for the 1% “… unless you can get a level of commitment on a par with their evil (which you will never be able to do absent God), then you are, I am sorry to have to say, in a similar position to the “Greenies”.
“The several men interviewed from 3:30 to 5:40 or so are genuine and persuasive, and the massacre house testimony from a brother of victims at 7:30 is also compelling. And the nighttime movement of the bodies, described by a villager, at 8:45, rivetting. The traumatized woman at 9:40: stunning. ” (Phil)
The part that struck me most was the expert analyst saying the regime did the Houla massacre to rally the Alawite and Christian minorities behind it. The ignorant-analyst is not aware that the Alawites and the Christians are ALREADY 100% behind the regime and not in need of any spooking to get them behind the regime. If anything is terrorizing these 2 groups, it’s the rebels that are screaming “the Christians to Beirut and the Alawites to the grave.”
That’s the maddening part, Walid: so-called mideast ‘experts’, ignorant meddling bastards who don’t even know the basics on Syria, dabbling so recklessly with the lives of MILLIONS of Syrians AND destabilizing a WHOLE region.
I’m meeting a fair amount of Syrians here while visiting South Lebanon, all of them hardened laborers, all of them sunnis, all of them for Bashar and ALL of them anti intervention.
/I’m meeting a fair amount of Syrians here while visiting South Lebanon, all of them hardened laborers, all of them sunnis, all of them for Bashar and ALL of them anti intervention./
So Syrian migrant workers in southern Lebanon think Assad is a good idea, fascinating.And what do Lebanese sunni think ?
Lebanese sunni think Apartheid israel is the arch enemy of Lebanon.
Sometimes ‘my enemy’s enemy’ is NOT my friend.
Hi Taxi, some of thoise may be closet brothers that are not at ease with revealing their true feelings in the Shia south. But I agree with you about the majority of the Sunni being with Assad and so are the Alawites and the Christians and now most probably the Kurds since the regime finally got around to making them full citizens after all these decades of keeping them in limbo. Assad has most of the country with him.
Walid,
Quite likely some of the Syrians present in south Lebanon may well be “closet Brothers”, but they’re few and far in between and I doubt that they’re posing as laborers: this is Hizbollah and Amal land and they’d have to pass a daily random test with every local villager they encounter – the villagers here are vigilantly on the lookout for any foreign shit-stirrers including Syrian ones. I know this cuz the Syrian laborers I know are regularly stopped on the village streets both by local uniformed security and by male civilians and asked, sometimes rudely, for their papers. Also, every Syrian laborer in the south of Lebanon must be registered with the local village council (Baladiyeh), run by either Amal or Hizbollah supporters, for security clearance before employers will employ them. Most of the Syrian laborers have been working in villages for years, reside there with their brothers and cousins and sometimes wives and children too. They’ve been here long enough that their faces and names are familiar to everyone and they’ve become part of the fabric of the village where they work and reside.
Bashar indeed has the majority support in his country and yes including recently the kurds – about a month ago he granted them citizenship and civic bureaucratic appointments to run their own enclaves – to the chagrin of the salafists, and of course the Turks.
Walid
/e Kurds since the regime finally got around to making them full citizens after all these decades of keeping them in limbo/
You sure they will buy that ?
They have a chance now to join with Kurdish de facto state in Iraw without actually declaring independence.
They might as well prefer that Assad falls or at the very least stay weak and Syria divided.
They have no interest in the country unity after all.
I personally read it as a sign that Assad grows desperate.