Syria watch...

[Tarrel]

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 the the four words Thou shallt not kill' are good words in the right orde?

Actually, they work quite well in any order. As Yoda might put it; "Kill not, thou shalt".

[biffvernon]

Gosh, you're right. Now we just need Dolly Parton to sing them, in any or all orders.

Re previous post, I guess that makes Russia and China with the better policy?

[Tarrel]

If we value the sovereignty of the nation state, then Yes. But I don't think we have that clarity of thought at the moment.

Of course, to make matters worse, the grey area is exploited by those with ulterior motives. As in when Iraq was invaded on the basis that; "Even if we don't find WMD, it's still justified as it will be good for the Iraqi people."

[biffvernon]

The Labour Party seem to be sitting on the fence, fudging, instead of taking the opportunity to be an Opposition.

[the_lyniezian]

There are certain biblically-mandated exceptions....

I don't mostly agree with the death penalty...

Sigh... That's the trouble with so many people who say they follow one of the Abrahamic traditions. They start making exceptions. My point is that the four words 'Thou Shallt not kill' are just fine on their own and don't need addendums and codicils and fudging about.

It isn't me making the exceptions necessarily. They're already written into the Scriptural texts and have been for centuries.

Let's look at it either of two way: the legal argument, and the moral argument.

In the legal sense, even in modern law, you're going to find a piece of legislation which might say one thing, but you're also going to find other legislation which might appear to conflict or provide certain loopholes and exceptions to the first law. Normally in our modern legal system, at least, it's the business of the courts to weigh up the conflicting legal arguments and work out a decision, and that can set a precedent for later cases. The point of the matter is, you can't just take one piece of legal text, ignoring every other part of the law, and pronounce "this is what the law says on the matter".

Then there's the moral argument. You have your general principle, "you shall not kill". Trouble is, what happens when someone is threatening your life, or the life of your family, friends, neighbours, whatever? What if someone poses a danger to society and the only way of preventing that is death? Of course you cannot just take these decisions lightly, so there have to be clear understandings of when it is right or wrong, and it has to be mandated by the proper authorities in accordance with proper principles.

The fact is that every culture, every belief system does this one way or another. Even if this country has abolished the death penalty, we still have a military which gets involved in real conflicts which really kills people. There are still cases where the police needs to provide armed response and may have to shoot to kill.

The question remains, when? I think we do not have the understanding of God to be able to decide for ourselves, nor the authority, so it is best to be cautious, and if we believe the Bible as inspired of God, follow its guidance, and where that is lacking, that of the Holy Spirit.

Thing is I cannot see anywhere in the New Testament suggesting that Christians should be involved in killing or conflict at all, or anything that would point directly to Old Testament example as a means of justifying it, as the Mosaic Law does not apply to us. There is however the fact that the (presumed secular) ruling authority "doesn’t bear the sword in vain; for he is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to him who does evil." (Romans 13:4, World English Bible)

Later in the same passage, we read something else important: 'For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not give false testimony,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love doesn’t harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.' (Romans 13: 9-10, World English Bible). What I get from this and the context is, if we were all to live according to the principle of love, there would be no need for any punishment that comes as a result of breaking the law. If nobody killed, there would be no need for war, or armed police, or the death penalty for murder where that is legal.

How does this fit in with intervention in Syria? Only that we need to be cautious, follow the proper rules and precedents of international law, and ensure we are not making things worse by our actions.

[the_lyniezian]

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...

... or rather, "we want their oil"...

[Billhook]

Steve
"I'm saying we should not even be in the game of picking winners, "

No, you weren't. You asked, with gratuitous sarcasm, how effective weaponry could be got to secular rebel forces.

I gave you a straight answer, and asked if you could propose a better contribution to resolving the conflict.

You ignore a straight answer, and plainly have nothing preferable in view as an alternative.

Your tory isolationism is not an alternative - it is a recipe for mayhem unconstrained.
In the negative case, consider the failure to support Czechoslovakia against the Reich;
in the positive case, consider Sierra Leone.

When you're getting the shit kicked out of you, I think you'll change your views on intervention pretty fast.
Is that really what it will take for you to comprehend the duty to help protect others ?

[biffvernon]

As with all wars, the first casualty is truth. Already we seem to have a tangled web.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/18447-in ... l-un-probe

[Lord Beria3]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... iband.html

Remarkable political developments tonight. It appears that Ed Miliband faced a backlash from the shadow cabinet last night which has forced him to raise his conditions if Labour were to support a military strike.

Mr Cameron recalled Parliament tomorrow with the intention of giving MPs a vote on military action in response to last week's suspected deadly gas attack by the Assad regime.

However, in a phone call at 5.15pm tonight, Mr Miliband told the Prime Minister that Labour could not support British involvement in international missile strikes without more compelling evidence and a clear legal basis to act.

The Opposition leader said he could not allow his MPs to support a government motion which would have paved the way for an expected two-day bombardment of cruise missiles beginning this weekend.

Instead, the United Nations weapons inspectors must be allowed to complete their work analysing evidence from the scene of the suspected chemical attack, and present their findings to the UN Security Council for a vote, Labour said.

Mr Miliband said the Prime Minister must return to the Commons next week to make his case again and allow MPs a second, final vote authorising force.

[Lord Beria3]

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/0 ... s-a28.html

Superb Marxist analysis on the current crisis and the reasons behind the war drive.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

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?

Who accused you of being a pacifist?

My point was that quoting just the 4 little words ignores the cultural weight that went with them. Other tribes weren't regarded as being worthy and certainly weren't protected the commandments. The commandments implicitly reveal an apartheid approach to life where everyone who isn't 'us' doesn't count.

Living your life by TSNK is only tenable if everyone lives that way or at least that people don't decide that 'just' crippling you/stealing your land/destroying your crops/poisoning your well is OK as they aren't killing you. Then TSNK just gets in the way of defending yourself.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

When you're getting the shit kicked out of you, I think you'll change your views on intervention pretty fast.
Is that really what it will take for you to comprehend the duty to help protect others ?

I have and will continue to intervene if I see someone being viciously assaulted in the street.

I have no intention of ever kicking someone's door down to get involved in a family argument.

The examples might be simplistic but that's the crux of it - many people in Syria support the current regime.

[Little John]

Gosh, you're right. Now we just need Dolly Parton to sing them, in any or all orders.

Re previous post, I guess that makes Russia and China with the better policy?

Don't go dissing Dolly. The voice of an angel and the heart of a poet. Not to mention, two of the biggest assets in popular music;






A sharp business brain and an unmatched talent for song writing.

[biffvernon]

Who accused you of being a pacifist?

It would be more accolade than accusation.

[raspberry-blower]

More essential reading:
Latest from Media Lens:

Clearly, in March 2011, readers were bombarded with commentary promoting R2P as a basis for Western military 'intervention' in Libya. As we have discussed, many of the alleged horrors said to justify Nato's assault - Gaddafi's use of vicious foreign mercenaries and Viagra-fuelled mass rape, his planned massacre in Benghazi - were sheer invention. The violent chaos that has befallen Libya since Nato's war, however, is very real.

Some interesting questions arise. How did the same politicians and journalists respond to the overthrow of the democratically elected Egyptian government on July 3, 2013 by a military force trained, armed and supported by the United States? How did politics and media respond to the appalling and undisputed August 14 massacre of civilians by this same military? And how heavily did the much-loved R2P doctrine – allegedly rooted in ethics rather than realpolitik - feature in coverage of these crimes?
Massacres that matter "Responsibility to Protect" in Egypt, Libya and Syria Part 1

Then the ever reliable Pepe Escobar has his say:

The Obama administration has ruled that Assad allowed UN chemical weapons inspectors into Syria, and to celebrate their arrival unleashed a chemical weapons attack mostly against women and children only 15 kilometers away from the inspectors' hotel. If you don't believe it, you subscribe to a conspiracy theory.

Evidence? Who cares about evidence? Assad's offer of access for the inspectors came ''too late''. Anyway, the UN team is only mandated to determine whether chemical weapons were deployed - but not by who, according to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon's spokesman.

As far as the Obama administration and UK Prime Minister David ''of Arabia'' Cameron are concerned - supported by a barrage of corporate media missiles - that's irrelevant; Obama's ''red line'' has been crossed by Assad, period. Washington and London are in no-holds-barred mode to dismiss any facts contradicting the decision. Newspeak - of the R2A kind - rules. If this all looks like Iraq 2.0 that's because it is. Time to fix the facts around the policy - all over again. Time for weapons of mass deception - all over again.

Obama set for holy Tomahawk war

If you want to find out what is actually going on in the ME then Information Clearing House gives a more balanced picture than you will find in the MSM.

Also Step Back

Bottom line is that until the facts on the ground can be verified as to which side fired the missile(s) that contained the chemical weapon then everyone should hold their horses. The last time there was a chemical weapon attack the UN concluded that it was likely that the "rebels" were responsible.
If it turns out that the jihadist, Salafist Al-Nusra had carried out the atrocity - will NATO bomb them instead?