Syria watch...

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 28 Aug 2013, 03:32

Just which commanders are to be supplied with arms shipments is something that has been under close observation for two years, and lines of supply are already in operation from Turkish airfields.

That there would be some leakage is unavoidable but largely irrelevant, given that surface-to-air missile launchers' locations should be tracked by satellite and their function limited by a remote unlock system - anti-armour weapons don't have the same potential to be misused. That leakage is further irrelevant in that the empowerment of secular forces is aided not only by having effective weaponry to draw recruits from the radical Wahabists but also by having real time access to battlefield intelligence - which is invaluable in terms of battlefield success.

If you can offer a better proposal of an effective contribution to bringing the regime to the point of wanting out, I'd be glad to hear it,

Regards,

Lewis

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Aug 2013, 07:23

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:What you are missing is the context.

A command from a God explicitly instructing his followers to not kill each other.

Killing other people wasn't mentioned and nor was killing on his orders or in fact him killing anyone he pleases.

You have to see the whole picture otherwise it's just selective sampling and we know where that goes.

I am not a follower of an Abrahamic religion. I just took four words from their ancient text and pointed out that they are good words in the right order. I happen to thnk that they should form the basis of both personal and global policy.

Thou shallt not kill.

What was written back then in the Iron Age was very simple. Maybe whoever carved the words into a tablet of stone was too lazy to write, Thou shallt not kill members of our own tribe but it's ok to kill other people or even people of our own tribe when I say so.

But I doubt it. I'll keep taking the words at face value.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Aug 2013, 07:29

If you missed it, it's probably well worth listening again to the interview at about ten past seven on Radio Four Today programme with Admiral Lord West, a man who has had a bit of experience in military matters. I agree with much of what this ex-soldier said.

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 28 Aug 2013, 07:57

This is worth a watch: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-2 ... es-5-years

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 28 Aug 2013, 08:17

Hmmm, that could spark religeous/race riots on European and American streets. Time for back watching.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Aug 2013, 08:19

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 28 Aug 2013, 09:29

Billhook wrote:Just which commanders are to be supplied with arms shipments is something that has been under close observation for two years, and lines of supply are already in operation from Turkish airfields.

That there would be some leakage is unavoidable but largely irrelevant, given that surface-to-air missile launchers' locations should be tracked by satellite and their function limited by a remote unlock system - anti-armour weapons don't have the same potential to be misused. That leakage is further irrelevant in that the empowerment of secular forces is aided not only by having effective weaponry to draw recruits from the radical Wahabists but also by having real time access to battlefield intelligence - which is invaluable in terms of battlefield success.

If you can offer a better proposal of an effective contribution to bringing the regime to the point of wanting out, I'd be glad to hear it,

Regards,

Lewis

I'm saying we should not even be in the game of picking winners, particularly in that region where our record of having done so is laughable at best and, at worst, shows the moral reasoning put forward by our authorities as justification for picking those winners as being based on sick lies.

A (non exhaustive) list of examples include:

General Suharto (Indonesia 67-99)

Colonel Hugo Banzer Suarez (Bolivia: 1971-1978)

Reza Muhammed Shah Pahlawi {Shah of Iran} (Iran 41-79)

Augusto Ugarte Pinnochet (Chile: 1973-1990)

Fulgencio Batista (Cuba:1940-44 and 1952-1959)

P.W. Botha (South Africa: 1978-1989)

Saddam Hussein (Iraq: 1979-2003)

Muammar al-Qaddafi (Libya: 1969-2010)

Rafael Leonidas Molina Trujillo (Dominican Republic: 1930-1960)

Porfirio Diaz (Mexico: 1876-1880 and 1884-1891)

Morena Manuel Antonio Noriega (Panama: 1983-1989)

Anwar Al Saddat (Egypt: 1970-1981)

Husni Mubarak (Egypt: 1981-2011)

King Hussein (Jordan: 1952-1999)

King Abdulla (Jordan: 1999-?)

Francois Duvalier (known as Papa Doc) (Haiti: 1957-1971)

Jean-Claude Duvalier (known as Baby Doc) (Haiti: 1971-1986)

I could go on. Believe me, I could go on....

I urge anyone on here to put any of those names into a search engine to find out just what kind of people and regimes our elites regularly lever into power in other parts of the world.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 28 Aug 2013, 09:42

Lever into power or support in power. Let's face it, we (the US and Europe) have, whilst preaching about "bringing democracy to the middle east", been happily supporting an entirely non-democratic Saudi Arabian monarchy which stones people to death and prohibits women from driving. But that's OK, cos they're our friends...

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 28 Aug 2013, 10:19

Billhook wrote:2/. "The rebels" organized it to force America's hand into participation.

Neither seems particularly cogent, for while the first is plausible, it entails the risk of causing sufficient western force being applied to crush the dictatorship. The second lacks plausibility in practical terms, quite apart from ethical ones - since when were the rebels able to acquire, load, manipulate and launch rockets carrying WMD ? They've a hard time getting hold of RPGs.

However:

Three months ago, the UN Syria human rights commission member Carla Del Ponte said there were "strong concrete suspicions" that rebel fighters had used the nerve gas sarin, and Turkish security forces were reported soon afterwards to have seized sarin from al-Qaida-linked al-Nusra Front units heading into Syria.

From Seamus Milne

Peter.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Aug 2013, 10:43

How much natural gas resource does Syria control?

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 28 Aug 2013, 11:18

biffvernon wrote:
JavaScriptDonkey wrote:What you are missing is the context.

A command from a God explicitly instructing his followers to not kill each other.

Killing other people wasn't mentioned and nor was killing on his orders or in fact him killing anyone he pleases.

You have to see the whole picture otherwise it's just selective sampling and we know where that goes.
I am not a follower of an Abrahamic religion. I just took four words from their ancient text and pointed out that they are good words in the right order. I happen to thnk that they should form the basis of both personal and global policy.

Thou shallt not kill.

What was written back then in the Iron Age was very simple. Maybe whoever carved the words into a tablet of stone was too lazy to write, Thou shallt not kill members of our own tribe but it's ok to kill other people or even people of our own tribe when I say so.

But I doubt it. I'll keep taking the words at face value.

See my reading of history every people who have become pacifists have ended up slaves and the reason biff isnt a slave in chains is because non pacifists are prepared to protect the biffs .

You have a police force that are armed if they need to be and a army, go to somewhere without that protection somewhere dangerous because they are not there and live as a pacifist .

Its easy to be a pacifist when your somewhere safe and someone else is putting themselves at danger to protect you.

If your really a pacifist you would abstain from ever calling the police if you thought they might ever use force. so you have a axe murderer thats killed part of your family and is chasing you round the garden you dont call the police in case the police use force, you just depend on being able to outrun said axe man, and the slim chance he might change.

Maybe you could shout advice to him while running to change him from his wicked ways

be a inspirational thing to see I'd bring popcorn

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 28 Aug 2013, 11:24

And rivers flow backwards, valleys are high, mountains are level and the truth is a lie.

Are those the lyrics of a song? If not then they should be.

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 28 Aug 2013, 11:26

UndercoverElephant wrote:Lever into power or support in power. Let's face it, we (the US and Europe) have, whilst preaching about "bringing democracy to the middle east", been happily supporting an entirely non-democratic Saudi Arabian monarchy which stones people to death and prohibits women from driving. But that's OK, cos they're our friends...

Oh...and they have oil.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Aug 2013, 11:43

Tarrel wrote:
And rivers flow backwards, valleys are high, mountains are level and the truth is a lie.
Are those the lyrics of a song? If not then they should be.

They are, indeed. The Grass is Blue by, surprisingly enough, Dolly Parton. She has a way with words.

Here she goes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JStm6QyLcw

Oh, and back to Syria, here we go again: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/No_to_war_on_Syria

And, JSD, did I say I was a pacifist or did I say that the four words 'Thou shallt not kill' are good words in the right order?

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 28 Aug 2013, 11:45

Maybe today is the day the World finally decides whether the sovereignty of the nation state matters or not. This has been a grey area for years and, IMO, has been a factor in many of the messy conflicts we have seen recently.

If our point of view on this had been clear at the start of the Syrian uprising, we wouldn't be where we are now. If the sovereignty of the nation state had been inviolate then Syria would have been in a position to deal with its internal dissent, and stability would have been restored. I'm not saying I'm a supporter of the regime, but I have travelled in Syria and met a lot of everyday Syrians. Before the uprising, most people were employed, safe, well-fed and healthy. Did they have "free speech" and "democracy"? Probably not, but who does?

If we had a clear, international understanding that the nation state is not inviolate, and that Syrians are world-citizens in need of protection from their local regime, then we would have got on with the job of supporting the uprising and the transition to an alternative government.

Where does that leave us now? Well, I think we still need to make that choice. If we respect the value of the nation state then, if anything, we should be supporting the regime to achieve a decisive victory so that stability can be restored and people stop being obliterated in the streets. If we don't respect the value of the state then we need to re-double our efforts to achieve at least a majority consensus for action and then force Assad to the negotiating table.

Well, that's what I think anyway.