Syria watch...

[Lord Beria3]

I do understand the international consensus that chemical warfare is a particularly barbaric way of killing people and there has become a taboo in the world.

Once it becomes clear who was responsible for launching the chemical attack in Syria by a independent group (like the UN, not Anglo-American intelligence agencies who have been proven by Iraq not to be trusted) then force should be used to punish those responsible, ideally by placing them under the Hague for war crimes.

On a ethical basis, it is a bit odd why killing somebody by bombs is acceptable but using sarin is not. However, the world currently has a taboo of using chemical weapons and we should try to keep that going.

Regarding who was responsible, I would suggest that the rebels are far more likely to be responsible then the Assad regime which is after all winning the war without chemical weapons.

Let us not forget that the UN declared that the rebels were the most likely culprits behind a previous chemical attack.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05 ... i-m07.html

In a series of interviews, UN investigator Carla del Ponte said that sarin gas used in Syria was fired by the US-backed opposition, not the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

Her account explodes the lies on which Washington and its European allies have based their campaign for war with Syria, according to which the US and its allies are preparing to attack Syria to protect its people from Assad’s chemical weapons. In fact, available evidence of sarin use implicates the Islamist-dominated “rebels” who are armed by US-allied Middle Eastern countries, under CIA supervision.

What I find most remarkable is that nobody in the mainstream media has noted the UN declaration in May 2013. No wonder even critically minded people on PS end up believing the governments narrative.

[Lord Beria3]

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/obamas-b ... e54d9e5681

Even Strator, the CIA linked intelligence analysis group is sceptical that Assad was behind the attack!!!

Al Assad is a ruthless man: He would not hesitate to use chemical weapons if he had to. He is also a very rational man: He would use chemical weapons only if that were his sole option. At the moment, it is difficult to see what desperate situation would have caused him to use chemical weapons and risk the worst. His opponents are equally ruthless, and we can imagine them using chemical weapons to force the United States to intervene and depose al Assad. But their ability to access chemical weapons is unclear, and if found out, the maneuver could cost them all Western support. It is possible that lower-ranking officers in al Assad's military used chemical weapons without his knowledge and perhaps against his wishes. It is possible that the casualties were far less than claimed. And it is possible that some of the pictures were faked.

All of these things are possible, but we simply don't know which is true. More important is that major governments, including the British and French, are claiming knowledge that al Assad carried out the attack. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a speech Aug. 26 clearly building the case for a military response, and referring to the regime attack as "undeniable" and the U.S. assessment so far as "grounded in facts." Al Assad meanwhile has agreed to allow U.N. inspectors to examine the evidence onsite. In the end, those who oppose al Assad will claim his supporters concealed his guilt, and the insurgents will say the same thing if they are blamed or if the inspectors determine there is no conclusive evidence of attacks.

The truth here has been politicized, and whoever claims to have found the truth, whatever it actually is, will be charged with lying. Nevertheless, the dominant emerging story is that al Assad carried out the attack, killing hundreds of men, women and children and crossing the red line Obama set with impunity. The U.S. president is backed into a corner.

[clv101]

My understanding is that drone strikes are precisely targeted. Their problem is that they are often precisely targeted at the wrong things, wrong times. I can see a distinct difference between chemical weapons indiscriminately killing everyone in a village and a drone strike precisely destroying a building that there was good reason to believe housed a legitimate target - even if on that particular afternoon there was actually a wedding reception going on.

The impact could be the same 100 dead people - but I do still think there is a specific difference between the two.

[biffvernon]

They count as my 'lesser degrees'.

In precisely what way is the killing of potentially hundreds by an indiscriminate rain of death from the sky via the pushing of a button by an anonymous man with a shirt and tie in an office on the other side of the planet a lesser degree of killing than death by gas?

I think killing anybody, anyway, is wrong. The 6th commandment in the Abrahamic tradition of religions got it neatly right with "Thou shallt not kill". (As translated by King James's lot and with the proviso that God, Abraham or whoever was talking about humans rather than lettuces or badgers).

As for degrees of accuracy, see clv101 above.

[jonny2mad]

They count as my 'lesser degrees'.

In precisely what way is the killing of potentially hundreds by an indiscriminate rain of death from the sky via the pushing of a button by an anonymous man with a shirt and tie in an office on the other side of the planet a lesser degree of killing than death by gas?

I think killing anybody, anyway, is wrong. The 6th commandment in the Abrahamic tradition of religions got it neatly right with "Thou shallt not kill". (As translated by King James's lot and with the proviso that God, Abraham or whoever was talking about humans rather than lettuces or badgers).

As for degrees of accuracy, see clv101 above.

hmmm if you've read the old testament the invisible man is always either killing people himself, telling people to kill people or make them sex slaves or setting his killer bears to kill children .

so I'd take his "thou shalt not kill" thing with more than a pinch of salt,

[Little John]

My understanding is that drone strikes are precisely targeted. Their problem is that they are often precisely targeted at the wrong things, wrong times. I can see a distinct difference between chemical weapons indiscriminately killing everyone in a village and a drone strike precisely destroying a building that there was good reason to believe housed a legitimate target - even if on that particular afternoon there was actually a wedding reception going on.

The impact could be the same 100 dead people - but I do still think there is a specific difference between the two.

Ours and US forces are responsible for the deaths of at least 200,000 Iraqi and Afghani civilians, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Vietnam. All of which does not even include the US-inspired, supported and facilitated wars in South America and beyond over the last several decades. If those are taken into account, we're right up there with the Nazis in terms of body count.

Oh well, our motives were pure and mistakes do happen, so that's all right then. We are supremely equipped to be the global arbiters of moral outrage about current events in Syria. Yes, of course we are. Sufficiently so, in fact, to also consider ourselves morally equipped go in there and bomb the shit out of them.

That'll teach the fuckers.

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

[clv101]

Steve I totally agree with you. It's a mad mad world.

[clv101]

Steve I totally agree with you. It's a mad mad world.

[biffvernon]

hmmm if you've read the old testament the invisible man is always either killing people himself, telling people to kill people or make them sex slaves or setting his killer bears to kill children .

so I'd take his "thou shalt not kill" thing with more than a pinch of salt,

Oh, 90% or more of the Old Testament is completely bonkers. I'm only talking about four words of it. They are good words, arranged in the right order.

[woodburner]

Oh well, our motives were pure and mistakes do happen, so that's all right then. We are supremely equipped to be the global arbiters of moral outrage about current events in Syria. Yes, of course we are. Sufficiently so, in fact, to also consider ourselves morally equipped go in there and bomb the shit out them..

Cameron's popularity is low. The moronic tendency like macho leaders. If Cameron can engineer it, the UK will be part of some military action.

[the_lyniezian]

In precisely what way is the killing of potentially hundreds by an indiscriminate rain of death from the sky via the pushing of a button by an anonymous man with a shirt and tie in an office on the other side of the planet a lesser degree of killing than death by gas?

I think killing anybody, anyway, is wrong. The 6th commandment in the Abrahamic tradition of religions got it neatly right with "Thou shallt not kill". (As translated by King James's lot and with the proviso that God, Abraham or whoever was talking about humans rather than lettuces or badgers).

As for degrees of accuracy, see clv101 above.

hmmm if you've read the old testament the invisible man is always either killing people himself, telling people to kill people or make them sex slaves or setting his killer bears to kill children .

so I'd take his "thou shalt not kill" thing with more than a pinch of salt,

There are certain biblically-mandate exceptions to the general rule, largely involving the death penalty (divinely inflicted or otherwise) and war.

The whole "sex slaves" thing is simply a... highly creative reading of the text by anti-Christian polemicists, and the "children" killed by bears could just as easily have been youths or young men who ought to have known better than hold a prophet of God in contempt.

I don't mostly agree with the death penalty nowadays since I believe Jesus took it for those willing to repent.

War is at best a necessary evil, and then only as a last resort. I don't know what is justifiable in Syria. Certainly in the case of our trying to push our noses in and muddy things up even more.

[biffvernon]

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.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

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.

[Billhook]

Given that the Abrahamic text is largely a record of Israel's military engagements, and that there is not the slightest criticism of this from the perspective of the ten commandments that were the founding precepts of the creed, I'd suggest the one about taking life has long been mis-translated.

Moses did not lead a tribe of pacifists out of the desert,so the logical and accurate translation would be: "Thou shalt not murder"

Killing for motives of defence is not murder, and should be clearly distinguished as totally a different action.

Killing to overthrow a vicious dictatorship that persists in murdering people seems not only justified, but, given that such regimes are by nature not open to peaceful dialogue and reform, it is the only practical alternative to submitting to the gradual spread of such tyranny.

This is not in any way to condone the aggression that US imperialism has indulged in since WW2 - nor to accept its propaganda as any more than cant - it is to make the point that force of arms is a necessary capacity to resist tyranny wherever it arises, on whatever scale.

Biff's notion of researching alternatives - such as bombing Assad with pomegranites - is a worthy aim, but it does nothing to halt the present slaughter he is imposing. We should be asking the majority of Syrians just what they want done :-
nothing beyond requesting peace talks - a US bombardment - pomegranites - or the supply to non-jihady rebel forces of sufficient full-spectrum materiel and real time intelligence to crush Assad's capacity for aggression.

Regards,

Lewis

[Little John]

Given that the Abrahamic text is largely a record of Israel's military engagements, and that there is not the slightest criticism of this from the perspective of the ten commandments that were the founding precepts of the creed, I'd suggest the one about taking life has long been mis-translated.

Moses did not lead a tribe of pacifists out of the desert,so the logical and accurate translation would be: "Thou shalt not murder"

Killing for motives of defence is not murder, and should be clearly distinguished as totally a different action.

Killing to overthrow a vicious dictatorship that persists in murdering people seems not only justified, but, given that such regimes are by nature not open to peaceful dialogue and reform, it is the only practical alternative to submitting to the gradual spread of such tyranny.

This is not in any way to condone the aggression that US imperialism has indulged in since WW2 - nor to accept its propaganda as any more than cant - it is to make the point that force of arms is a necessary capacity to resist tyranny wherever it arises, on whatever scale.

Biff's notion of researching alternatives - such as bombing Assad with pomegranites - is a worthy aim, but it does nothing to halt the present slaughter he is imposing. We should be asking the majority of Syrians just what they want done :-
nothing beyond requesting peace talks - a US bombardment - pomegranites - or the supply to non-jihady rebel forces of sufficient full-spectrum materiel and real time intelligence to crush Assad's capacity for aggression.

Regards,

Lewis

Oh yeah, and how do you propose to get arms to non jihadists in the chaotic theatre of war that is Syria? And, even if you do manage to pull off that not insignificant little miracle, how do you then propose to ensure they do not end up in such hands anyway?