Syrian war thread - Page 156 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
By layman
#14907893
@Atlantis good post but I am not pondering which side is preferable or even Assad himself. Syria’s progress in the human development index alone is pretty convincing of its relative success.

What I am more concerned about is whether he has enough support to continue after he has won? Once victory is secured, he may be better off handing power to a like minded ally.

Lastly, my musings about quantifying local and foreign support was more about how the debate is framed. Each side makes very absolute claims in these things which I find irritating, pompous and unhelpful.

When did everyone become a propagandist?
By Atlantis
#14907926
@layman, the man Assad is not important. It is the regime Assad, i.e. the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party of Syria, which has ruled Syria for half a century. It's effectively a one-party regime, like Singapore, which is so much admired by Westerners. It has nearly 2 million members and there is no viable political alternative. If the Baath is removed from power by Western military intervention, like in Iraq, the only alternative is an Islamist regime, like we saw in Egypt after the fall of Mubarak and like we see in Turkey, where the AKP eclipses all other parties.

Assad the "monster" is a simplistic image created in the West for the bleating sheep to demonize the man before slaying the monster. Nearly 5,000 years ago, Gilgamesh, the ruler of the city of Ur, demonized the guardian of the cedar forest Humbaba as a monster before slaying him by ruse and deceit in what is today's Lebanon and Syria. 5,000 years and nothing has changed, except that it was about timber back then, while it is about oil today. But apart from that, human politics is still played with the same sordid tricks and lies.

Interestingly enough, recently new tablets of the Gilgamesh saga have been discovered which portray Humbaba not as a monster but as the beloved leader of a paradise:

"Where Humbaba came and went there was a track, the paths were in good order and the way was well trodden ... Through all the forest a bird began to sing: A wood pigeon was moaning, a turtle dove calling in answer. Monkey mothers sing aloud, a youngster monkey shrieks: like a band of musicians and drummers daily they bash out a rhythm in the presence of Humbaba."

I don't believe that the rebels, which have turned Syria into the hell of a proxy war, have any support in the population.

If the Americans want to topple Assad, they would have to fight the Russians. Americans only fight small and weak countries that have been disarmed first. The 2,000 US special forces illegally in Syria serve no purpose except to discredit the Kurds as Yankee lackeys. If the Americans want to establish Kurdistan as a separate unit, they face the opposition from Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran and Russia. They would consolidate an anti-American coalition in the region.

Of the available options, Assad always was the best option for Syria. Today he is the only option for ending the civil war and the suffering of the people of Syria. Western leaders that have tried to topple the Syrian government are 1st grade war criminals and ought to spend the rest of their days in prison (there are times when even a saint wishes for the death penalty to be reintroduced).

Each side makes very absolute claims in these things which I find irritating, pompous and unhelpful.


If you are attacked with simplistic political slogans like the "monster Assad" perpetually repeated by the media, you have no choice but to reply in a similar manner because the other side will not even listen to arguments describing the infinitely complex reality of the political situation.

But there can be no doubt about who started it. UKUS have interfered in the region since the 19th century and the US has tried to destabilize Syria since 1949. The ideology of the Baath party is:

Anti-imperialism, Arab nationalism, Arab socialism, Anti-Zionism, Left-wing nationalism, Pan-Arabism, Secularism

That doesn't sit well with our "friends" in Washington.

@Zamuel, in Germany we know a thing or two about "vassal status", it's not pleasant, especially when our imperial overlords try to drag us into another war. As to Syria, you have lost it - doubly; you have lost the plot and the empire has lost the war. :D
User avatar
By Seeker8
#14907952
@Atlantis
Good post btw. I'm curious what what is happening in Germany after this latest western attack in Syria. It's disappointing the German government supported it, has there been a lot of anger and debate about it in Germany?
Last edited by Seeker8 on 20 Apr 2018 17:03, edited 1 time in total.
By Rich
#14907969
Atlantis wrote:The ideology of the Baath party is:

Anti-imperialism, Arab nationalism, Arab socialism, Anti-Zionism, Left-wing nationalism, Pan-Arabism, Secularism

:lol: So why did the Syrian Baath party side with the Persian, anti-socialist, right wing conservative, theocratic Iranian regime in the Iran- Iraq war? Why did Hafez, the great anti "Western-imperialist" stand shoulder to shoulder with H Bush in the 91 Gulf war?

All the signs are that Bashar had even less belief in Baathism than his father. His only ideology is survival. Bashar would sell out the PLO, like his father did, if he thought it was necessary for his survival. Israel tried for years to get Bashar to abandon his alliance with Hezbollah and Iran. The only reason he didn't was he wisely calculated that he couldn't rely on Israel for his survival. Not that he got any gratitude or loyalty for the Palestinian Sunni Muslims for his support of their cause.
By Atlantis
#14908003
Seeker8 wrote:@Atlantis
Good post btw. I'm curious what what is happening in Germany after this latest western attack in Syria. It's disappointing the German government supported it, has there been a lot of anger and debate about it in Germany?


The sheep always want to believe what the government and the media tell them, but there is substantial opposition to the government aligning itself with the USUK in the Skripal and Douma cases. Most active government members mechanically repeat the mantra of "solidarity with the Nato allies" each time almost verbatim word for word. While open opposition comes mostly from the far-left and the far-right (Die Linke and AfD), there are many second tier politicians in all mainstream parties (CDU, SPD, Greens, FDP) who oppose the government position. Many in Germany who had admired Macron are also aghast the French president's warmongering.

The Russia Affairs Representative of the German government, Gernot Erler (SPD), said that there "was pressure" on the government to support Nato allies. Even the vice-president of the CDU, Achim Laschet, said that he would have expected solid evidence in the Skripal case for the UK to "force" its allies into a coordinated diplomatic response. As we know, there is no real evidence, only circumstantial evidence based on a negative image of Russia. Jan von Aken, Die Linke MP and former weapons inspector in Iraq, laid into the minister of defense, Ursula von der Leyen, in a public debate about the Douma affair, and both Trittin (ex-minister, Greens) and Guenther Verheugen (ex-EU commissioner) attacked the government. Social Democrats who remember Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik of detente with Russia are very disappointed with their party and the SPD foreign minister, Heiko Maas. The trauma from the war has had the result that post-war German governments have always been careful not to isolate Germany diplomatically as before the war. They opposed the Iraq war because they had allies, but without France ... This is likely to strengthen the political extremes, especially the AfD, who are the most vocal in their attacks on the government.

We don't know exactly how the German government was pressured into this. My feeling is that the US threatened to turn off the Russian gas pipeline to Germany by sanctioning companies doing business with Russia. Industry obviously is also opposed.

The thinking in the government seems to be that by paying lip-service to solidarity with the allies without actually engaging German military assets, the governments can get the margin of maneuver to keep the channels open with Moscow. The government formally committed to NordStream 2 at the very moment Russian diplomats were expelled.

Meanwhile in France, the far-left leader Melenchon attacks the French government for hitting Syria without solid evidence and without UN mandate (if you switch on the "subtitles button" in the Youtube menue, you get an approximate English translation)



Rich wrote:So why did the Syrian Baath party side with the Persian, anti-socialist, right wing conservative, theocratic Iranian regime in the Iran- Iraq war? Why did Hafez, the great anti "Western-imperialist" stand shoulder to shoulder with H Bush in the 91 Gulf war?

All the signs are that Bashar had even less belief in Baathism than his father. His only ideology is survival.


It's called Realpolitik, Rich. Why do you think the president of Syria should gamble his regime and his country for the sake of some outdated 19th century European ideology? I'm not sure that Hafez stood shoulder to should with GWB, but I'm sure that he was very aware of the fact that Syria was next on the list of US targets. No point antagonizing the Yanks while they were amassing huge military assets in the region. It is unlikely that the Russians would have been able to intervene at the time to save him from the Yanks. After all, Russia still hadn't fully recovered from the trauma of the SU's collapse.
By Atlantis
#14908009
An expert opinion issued by the scientific service of the German parliament, Bundestag, considers that the missile strike against Syria and the justification provided by the British violate international law. The parliamentary fraction of the far-left Die Linke had requested the expert opinion.

Luftschlag war laut Bundestags-Gutachten völkerrechtswidrig

EDIT: Here is an English source:

Syria airstrikes violated international law: German parliamentary report

The German government supported the airstrikes by the US, UK and France in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack. But a new report has said the airstrikes infringed upon international law.

The United States, France and the United Kingdom violated international law by launching airstrikes against Syria in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack, an independent German parliamentary report has found.

"Military force used against a state to punish it for infringing an international convention violates the prohibition of force under international law," said the report by the German parliament's non-partisan research service (the "Unterabteilung Wissenschaftliche Dienste").

The three countries launched airstrikes on Saturday after accusing the Syrian government of carrying out a chemical weapons attack near the capital Damascus on April 7 that allegedly killed at least 40 people.

Hours after the operation, German Chancellor Angela Merkel had said the operation was "necessary and appropriate" to preserve the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), an international treaty outlawing the use of chemical weapons.

The report was commissioned by Germany's Left party, which asked the civil servants to ascertain if the strikes conformed with international law. The findings cited the UN Charta, which calls on members to "refrain … from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

This ban on using military force, the report added, still applies when a country breaches an international treaty such as the CWC.

The UK's argument that airstrikes would remedy a humanitarian crisis and were therefore exempt from this ban was "not convincing," according to the report. The strikes, it said, could not stop the suffering caused by the ongoing civil war and it was not clear why a chemical weapons attack was a "decisive" event that required humanitarian intervention.

Moreover, the report disagreed with an argument voiced by German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, who had cited the UN Security Council's inability to react to the suspected chemical attack as part of his support for the airstrikes.

The Council's indecisiveness, based on Russia's opposition to US-backed proposals to investigate the suspected attack, was irrelevant from a legal perspective, it said.

Left lawmakers Heike Hänsel and Alexander Neu called the WD report a "slap in the face" for the German government, which had helped "erode" international law by supporting airstrikes.

Omid Nouripour, the foreign policy spokesman for the Green Party, said it was "high time that the government publicly declare [it had broken international law]."

But the foreign policy spokesman for Merkel's conservatives, Roderich Kiesewetter, defended the government's support for the airstrikes despite the WD's findings.

In a Twitter post, he wrote: "Sometimes a politically suitable assessment of how to deal with violations of international law is needed … The [WD] report found the airstrikes were contrary to international law. I think the government reacted wisely!"
Last edited by Atlantis on 20 Apr 2018 22:49, edited 1 time in total.
By Rich
#14908010
Atlantis wrote:It's called Realpolitik, Rich. Why do you think the president of Syria should gamble his regime and his country for the sake of some outdated 19th century European ideology? I'm not sure that Hafez stood shoulder to should with GWB, but I'm sure that he was very aware of the fact that Syria was next on the list of US targets.

Syria's contingent was the 6th largest in Desert Storm. Sent to defend Saudi theocracy from Baathist Iraq.

I certainly don't expect the Assad's to die for ideological bull shit but we in the West shouldn't tarnish ourselves by supporting bankrupt so called secular dictatorships like Gadaffi or Saddam. This gives the worst of all worlds allowing the Muslims to blame the bankruptcy of their cultures on us. Its not our job to make Muslim societies work. Its our job to set up Infidel safe havens in Lebanon, Syria and Egypt and help ruthlessly cleanse them of every last Muslim terrorist.

I propose handing Saudi Eastern province and Bahrain over to the Twelvers, but if that's not acceptable then lets occupy it and import poor Hindu's and Sikhs to run the place. What is beyond doubt is that Sunni Muslims can not be trusted with Saudi's oil wealth.
By Atlantis
#14908026
@Rich, let's bomb the Saudis to punish them for Yemen, but let's not hand it over to the Twelvers. Once the Russians push out the Yankee imperialists, Muslims will just be fine looking after their own affairs.

In the meantime, we know how Russia is going to respond to the missile attack. The Russians are going to beef up Syrian air defenses. Smart move, comrade Vlad!

I guess the orange ape wasn't even aware of the understanding between the US and Russia not to supply the S-300 system to Syria. Our favorite apartheid regime won't be happy.

Russia: U.S. strikes remove moral hurdles for S-300 missiles for Assad - RIA

MOSCOW (Reuters) - U.S. military strikes on Syria last week removed any moral obligation Russia had to withhold S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems from its ally Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Friday,according to RIA state news agency.

Lavrov was also quoted as saying that, prior to the U.S. strikes on Syrian targets, Russia had told U.S. officials which areas of Syria represented “red lines” for Moscow, and the U.S. military action did not cross those lines.

“Now, we have no moral obligations. We had the moral obligations, we had promised not to do it some 10 years ago, I think, upon the request of our known partners,” he said according to RIA.

He also said that he was convinced Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump would not allow an armed confrontation between their two countries, RIA reported.

A Russian army commander has also said that Moscow would consider supplying S-300 missile systems to Syria following U.S.-led strikes.

The United States, France and Britain launched 105 missiles last week in retaliation for a suspected poison gas attack by government forces on a rebel-held area near the capital.

According to military analysts, the S-300 surface-to-air missile system would improve Russia’s ability to control air space in Syria, where Moscow’s forces support the government of President Bashar al-Assad, and could be aimed at deterring tougher U.S. action.


THE REVOLUTION WHICH THE US RAID ON SYRIA LAUNCHED – NO MORE US AIR SUPERIORITY MEANS EVERYONE IS ON THEIR OWN (PASS THE S-400 PLEASE)

By John Helmer, Moscow

US President Donald Trump didn’t mean to start a revolution. President Vladimir Putin tried persuading him not to. But on April 14 the revolution was launched by American warplanes, surface ships and a submarine.

The outcome is that the US can no longer count on air superiority anywhere in the world where Russian air defences operate, backed by Russian command-and-control systems. Without air superiority, the US has no force multiple on the ground of the magnitude required for the Pentagon to attack; that is, the ratio of American men and firepower the Pentagon calculates for making sure their enemies on their ground can be defeated.

This is revolutionary, and has spread instantly to every war front

[...]

While the tactical results of the April 14 attack continue to be debated with fresh evidence, the US operation has removed strategic uncertainty for Russia’s military leadership in its debate with Putin. The General Staff are convinced the US is at war with Russia on all fronts, and readying to attack with military force. Consequently, Russia must prepare to defend to the point where the US will lose the advantage of both surprise and swarm – and lose its own forces as well. Such a defence requires the Russian doctrine of red-line surprise so that, once crossed, the US cannot be confident it can defeat Russian defences, nor confident the US can defend itself against the launch of the newest Russian weapons. War by miscalculation between US and Russian forces is therefore much closer now.
User avatar
By Seeker8
#14908157
I don't think this has been posted. Peter Hitchens arguing against the Syrian Intervention.

It was a good interview, i like the way Hitchens argues with a kind of dismissive manner. :lol:

By Atlantis
#14908186
Seeker8 wrote:I don't think this has been posted. Peter Hitchens arguing against the Syrian Intervention.

It was a good interview, i like the way Hitchens argues with a kind of dismissive manner. :lol:



Priti Patel sounds like a revolting character. Whenever I hear somebody wanting to bomb on "humanitarian" grounds I feel like throwing up.

The warmongers keep on asking those opposed "would you be willing to bomb Assad if the chemical attack is confirmed?" I would ask back whether they are prepared to bomb the guilty party, no matter which side is confirmed to be behind attack? Would they agree to bomb the guilty party or only Assad? Would they agree to bomb London and Washington if the Western-backed Islamists were to be confirmed as the guilty party?

And are we going to punish the Saudis together with their Americans, British and French backers on "humanitarian" grounds for bombing Yemen back into the stone ages?

The hypocrisy of it is sickening. It is not about "humanitarian" grounds, it is about regime change no matter how many people have to die.

It's not Assad, it's people like Priti Patel who are destroying human rights by using it for imperialist objectives.
#14908193
Rich, over the years I tend not to address your commentary on PoFo, you're an intelligent guy and all but ideologically miles apart I suspect from where I'm at. But today being my birthday and all, I'm turning over a new leaf. You said;

Syria's contingent was the 6th largest in Desert Storm. Sent to defend Saudi theocracy from Baathist Iraq.


And Hafez Assad's Syria being Baathist too, at that. My how the chickens come home to roost as the saying goes. However...

I certainly don't expect the Assad's to die for ideological bull shit but we in the West shouldn't tarnish ourselves by supporting bankrupt so called secular dictatorships like Gadaffi or Saddam.


We support whomever we will in the Capitalist world, as long as they supply us with what we want at the prices we want, and we'll prop them up against their local foes and even against their own peoples, as long as the Global Plutocracy gets what they want out of the deal.


This gives the worst of all worlds allowing the Muslims to blame the bankruptcy of their cultures on us. Its not our job to make Muslim societies work. Its our job to set up Infidel safe havens in Lebanon, Syria and Egypt and help ruthlessly cleanse them of every last Muslim terrorist.


To what end? I seem to recall that you have a certain Anti-Monotheist fetish, correct me if i'm wrong. And who is this ''our'' that you are talking about, anyway? Why should ''I'' get involved in some Imperialist project? See, that's the thing, Baathists are Fascists, but Communists are Anti-Imperialist, and that trumps the rest, resisting Imperialism is the greater priority.

I propose handing Saudi Eastern province and Bahrain over to the Twelvers, but if that's not acceptable then lets occupy it and import poor Hindu's and Sikhs to run the place. What is beyond doubt is that Sunni Muslims can not be trusted with Saudi's oil wealth.


I'll give you credit for at least being frank about what the bottom line is for you, if not for me.
By skinster
#14908468




Atlantis wrote:Priti Patel sounds like a revolting character. Whenever I hear somebody wanting to bomb on "humanitarian" grounds I feel like throwing up.


Hitchens calling her out on not knowing who she was supporting on the ground was pretty :lol: and :knife:
By Atlantis
#14908510
skinster wrote:https://twitter.com/southfronteng/status/988123905977020416



I have wondered why Macron was so eager to join the UKUS missile strike against Syria. I have to admit I didn't follow French news very closely recently, but my first thought was that he is trying to deflect from domestic problems by posing as a strong French president prominent in international affairs. That always pays in the polls in France. But on second thought, there may be another motive. Perhaps it's his way of trying to save the Iran deal. In diplomacy Realpolitik and not ideology is important. In other words, if you want something, you have to give something else. Aligning with Trump on Syria, he may have hoped to gain leverage for saving the Iran deal. It remains to be seen if that will work out.
User avatar
By Crantag
#14908511
Atlantis wrote:I have wondered why Macron was so eager to join the UKUS missile strike against Syria. I have to admit I didn't follow French news very closely recently, but my first thought was that he is trying to deflect from domestic problems by posing as a strong French president prominent in international affairs. That always pays in the polls in France. But on second thought, there may be another motive. Perhaps it's his way of trying to save the Iran deal. In diplomacy Realpolitik and not ideology is important. In other words, if you want something, you have to give something else. Aligning with Trump on Syria, he may have hoped to gain leverage for saving the Iran deal. It remains to be seen if that will work out.

Those are fair thoughts and political calculation is often multivariate. I for one am also disinclined to discount France's historical colonial relationship with Syria as an aspect of French consideration. These relationships typically form the basis of business interests.
By Atlantis
#14908515
Crantag wrote:Those are fair thoughts and political calculation is often multivariate. I for one am also disinclined to discount France's historical colonial relationship with Syria as an aspect of French consideration. These relationships typically form the basis of business interests.


That is actually the third point I wanted to mention, but forgot while writing. It is very true that France still sees Lebanon and Syria as it's sphere of influence. But Syria has been a Russian ally for half a century and I don't see how France can get back in. After the missile attack, Assad actually returned the Order of the Legion d'Honneur he had received from a previous French president.
#14908568
layman wrote:@Heisenberg the problem I have with this theory is how half hearted the effort is. As a token move it can’t pleasee either Saudi or Israel too much.

This is my whole proble with the western false flag and escalation narrative. It’s just too much effort for too little reward and too much risk to self serving politicians.

I actually think in this case that the politicians were restrained by sceptics in the military. James Mattis, for example, was much more careful with his words about the attack than Nikki Haley was, and we've mentioned a few retired senior British army officers who voiced doubts in this thread. It's not a huge stretch to imagine that serving officers might share their misgivings.

And if you're in any doubt that this is about pleasing Saudi Arabia, this morning, the Saudis bombed a wedding in Yemen, killing 20 people (half the death toll of the supposedly "unacceptable" alleged gas attack in Douma), and there has not been a peep from the British, American or French governments.

layman wrote:This brings me to a key point in all this. Can we quantify the foreign support given to each side and by who and can we quantify the support each side has locally?

Each side claims Assad either has majority support or none at all. Each side claims the other is made up mostly of foreigners. although I am pro Assad, I cannot believe there is not a very significant Syrian local force against him and it’s obvious Russian, Iranian and hezbolah support is big. Gulf and Turkish aid. Combined with international jihadists seems to dwarf the western support. Not to mention that western support and allies has in part been directed against Isis. A strange third party that adds more mystery to the dynamic.

Anyone who thinks they have a clear picture of these numbers is probably blinded by ideology.

While all of this is true, my concern is primarily with wanting to keep Britain out of yet another middle eastern graveyard, rather than trying to prolong a war that has ruined the lives of millions of apolitical Syrians and caused a refugee crisis that is still destablising Europe.

And what for? A strange mix of ludicrous globalist idealism and cynical toadying to Saudi Arabia. If you want an example of someone who personifies these two things, look no further than "the leader of the free world", Emmanuel Macron.
By Rich
#14908572
Israel faces no immediate existential military threat. But they do want to keep Hezbollah tied down in Syria. Israel is facing a more immediate threat of delegitimisation. Hence the need to delegitimise Assad, Hezbollah and Iran, the groups that genuinely support the Palestinians' struggles as opposed to empty rhetoric. The act of bombing Assad delegitimises him in the unconsciousness minds of low conscious western voters.
Last edited by Rich on 23 Apr 2018 23:07, edited 1 time in total.
By skinster
#14908667
Dear Salafist Wahhabist Apologists
Your head chopper heros are apparently not what Syrians have in mind when they think of democratic revolution.

Mehdi Hasan (MH) can hardly be blamed for the ignorance that he displays in his Intercept article, “Dear Bashar al-Assad Apologists: Your Hero Is a War Criminal Even If He Didn’t Gas Syrians.” He has apparently never been to Syria, doesn’t often do research on Syria, and gets his information from proponents of a single point of view, representing a bunch of idealists that want to usher in their idea of a liberal democracy in Syria, without benefit of electoral niceties until their power is already ironclad. What’s wrong with this picture?

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s start by deconstructing the absurdities and the language in the MH article.

Thankfully, MH has spared us the need to deconstruct the absurd accusation that the Syrian armed forces have used chemical weapons. He apparently accepts that they don’t need to, that there is no benefit in using them, so why would they? OK, then who did? Cui bono? Easy answer. The motive of the promoters of destruction in Syria is to create a pretext for the US and its partners to bomb, invade and establish a no-fly zone; i.e., to directly take on the Syrian government and its allies. These war criminals include the neoconservative cabal in the US, the Zionist and Israeli proponents of using the US to fight Israel’s perceived enemies, and the Saudi and Qatari adventurists backing the Project for a New Salafist Paradise. These are the same players who brought us Iraq I and II, Libya, Afghanistan forever, Somalia and Yemen. What more could we wish for?

So let us move on to the MH complaint about barrel bombs. What is the complaint, exactly? Are they more horrible than other types of bombs? Is it OK to use bombs manufactured in western munitions factories for delivery by jet airplanes but not ones manufactured in Syria and delivered by helicopter? Never mind. It’s a great opportunity for MH to use the hyped term “BARREL BOMB” in order to enrage and terrify an undiscerning readership.

But what about all the civilian casualties, and isn’t the Syrian army to blame? Well, no, ISIS and the pseudonymous al-Qaeda affiliates are quite happy to post videos of their stonings, beheadings, crucifixions and immolations, so we know the army can’t be the only ones. In fact, given the summary executions of non-Muslims in territories “liberated” from the government, is there any reason to think that the forces fighting the Syrian government are responsible for fewer civilian deaths? I myself met refugees who had fled up to 70 km over the mountains in the dead of winter to Latakia in March, 2013 with no more than the clothes on their back. No one knows how many children and old people died.

Aircraft? The anti-government fighters don’t have them, do they? No, but they seem to be quite resourceful in eliminating innocent human lives nonetheless. An example is the at least 10,000 civilians that have lost their lives in Damascus due to mortars and “hell cannons” (which also use “barrel bombs”) since the start of the hostilities. Other examples include the withering four-year siege of the Shiite towns of Foua and Kafraya near Idlib and the unrelenting bombardment via “hell cannon” of the city of Aleppo from the enclave of East Aleppo until it was finally recovered by government forces in late 2016.

On the other hand, for those (unlike MH and the mainstream media), who consider evidence to be relevant, there is a plethora available to show that the Syrian army has been unusually respectful of civilian life. The claim is that Syria and its Russian allies have obliterated entire neighborhoods, raining bombs on the civilian population. The facts are somewhat at odds with this description.

First, there are the civilian casualties themselves. The UN stopped keeping casualty statistics in early 2016, but even the anti-government Syrian Observatory for Human Rights concedes that less that 1/3 of all casualties are civilians. No other war on record has had such a low ratio. By comparison, 2/3 were civilian casualties in Vietnam, WWII and most other wars.

Second, the Syrian army liberation of Homs, Aleppo and other areas has followed a typical progression that is quite the opposite of “just kill them all”. First, the army surrounds the area and lays siege. At this point, if the army wants to flatten the area and bring an end to the resistance there, it has the perfect means to do so. But it does not. Instead, it positions relief supplies at the perimeter and makes them available without prejudice to the inhabitants. It also offers sanctuary to all who wish to leave. Amazingly, this includes even the fighters. Syrian fighters willing to lay down their arms are offered amnesty. But many are not initially willing to accept amnesty, and many are not Syrian. To these, the government offers safe passage to other parts of Syria under opposition control, even permitting the fighters to keep their small arms.

If they refuse, the siege and the fighting continue, often for more than a year, and bombing is often a part of the campaign, especially toward the end, after multiple unilateral ceasefires from the government side, to try to conclude a peaceful end, as in Aleppo. The bombing is typically in the least inhabited areas, in order to remove cover for fighters, so that the army will incur fewer casualties when it goes in. The strategy doesn’t always work, but the low ratio of civilian casualties is a testimony to its relative success.

Why does the Syrian government do this? Wouldn’t it be easier to just level the entire area, civilians and all, and be rid of the fighters once and for all?

Not really. The government is aware that families are split, with some fighting on one side and some on another. One of the reasons so many Syrians remain loyal to the government is that it is seeking to protect all Syrians on all sides, with the intention of regaining their allegiance. The government also recognizes that many of the opposition fighters are, in effect, mercenaries, for whom fighting is a way to put food on the table when there are no other sources of income. Such fighters are not really enemies, just desperate people. Given an opportunity, they will easily return to the government side.

Then there are the hyped bombing casualty statistics. As I pointed out in 2015, even if we accept the statistics of the highly biased anti-government Human Rights Watch, the number of casualties per bomb is only two, including combatants. If we apply the ratio of civilian deaths, that is less than one civilian casualty per bomb, a clear indication that the Syrian air force is being far more respectful of civilians than the US was, for example, in its bombing of Raqqah, where twice as many civilians as fighters were killed.

But MH is slamming a position that nobody holds. The number of “leftists” that consider Bashar al-Assad a hero infinitesimal. There may be many Syrians who do, but that is not who MH is referring to. MH is misinterpreting the actions of some journalists (including “leftists”) to correct distortions and false information as defense of Assad. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for him, but an aversion to disinformation and lynch mob mentality is not the same as being pro-Assad. It’s not very helpful to say, on the one hand, that you oppose intervention in Syria, and then take all your (false) information from pro-intervention sources. In that case the interventionists will applaud your non-intervention stance.

Those of us whom MH accuses of being pro-Assad are nothing of the sort. We believe that Syrian sovereignty and territory should be fully respected (as MH also claims to believe), but we think it is important to counter the fake news and propaganda that are being used to justify the invasion of Syria. MH is in love with fake news. He prefers not to mention the killing of police in the uprisings that he describes as “peaceful demonstrations”. He prefers to cherry-pick the opinions of Syrian refugees in Germany rather than the views of the vast majority of refugees (displaced persons) who evacuated to government areas without leaving Syria. He produces the Human Rights Watch report on 50,000 morgue photos but not the deconstruction by investigator Rick Sterling. And he repeats the al-Qaeda claim and false film footage that Madaya was starving and in need when it was, in fact, sitting on a mountain of aid supplies being denied by the fighters themselves to the population.

If MH can’t see the difference between being pro-Assad and not falling for interventionist propaganda, that’s his problem. What’s astonishing is the number of “leftists” that rail against interventionism but base their views on the drivel purveyed by the interventionists themselves in the mainstream media, and that originates from propaganda mills like the White Helmets, the Aleppo/Ghouta Media Center and other lavishly funded set designers for warmongers. If MH is not an interventionist, he’s nevertheless making their case for them.
https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/04/dear ... pologists/
  • 1
  • 154
  • 155
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 205

@ingliz good to know, so why have double standar[…]

...Or maybe because there are many witnesses sayin[…]

Sounds like perfect organized crime material ex[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]